Conspiracy Theory #1 in a series of 1: 9/11

[Tastycles]

I've waited 1 hour for this and nobody posted, so I've only gone and done it myself...

The loosest version of the story goes that the US government somehow had something to do with the attacks on American soil on 11 September 2001. This is obviously quite a sensitive subject, so I urge people to think before they type.

I'm not going to be exhaustive here, because I most certainly work better responding to others on American topics, but I'll state my position quite loosely. I don't think that the CIA, FBI, ATF, or indeed GWB, had anything to do with the attacks whatsoever. I don't feel I need to justify that, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, because of the footage we've all seen is there for them to explain away, but I won't be dismissive to the views put forward.

There are one or two things that I do find suspicious; namely the fact that they found the documents of the hijackers, and more saliently perhaps, I sincerely doubt that United 93 was in anyway taken over by the passengers. I am about 90% certain it was shot down, but that was probably the right thing to do, as was the subsequent cover up. Anyway, the floor is open.

 

[Барбоса]

The theories over US government involvement in 9/11 stem from a general fear of no longer being in control. Up until then, wars were conflicts fought elsewhere, where they could only be experienced by the public through their televisions. The attacks that day highlighted that with globalisation a terrorist organisation could reach those places previously thought to be impregnable and wreak havoc on an almost unprecedented scale. Those who proposed internal co-operation/planning were likely already partial to what they perceived as the over-arching power of government. For such people, the shock of the human tragedy made the jump to US planning of the hijackings seem not only plausible but positively certain. Such theories gain ground because in a way they are easier to accept that the truth; in this case, that everyone that lives within a big city in western countries is potentially a target for these fundamentalists.

I tend to discount virtually all conspiracy theories regarding anything - moon landings, Grassy Knoll etc. I am certainly suspicious and like to think I can tell when I am being BSed. However, I think that the institution that makes its living through sensationalism, the media, is paradoxically the reason why these theories are just that - theories. Those same journalists you hate for digging up dirt about people who don't matter (i.e. celebrities) and presenting it as important are hardly going to let a potential story regarding duplicity in the 9/11 attacks go un-investigated. Even the most secretive of governments could not keep something so big a secret from the vicious and determined western media.

 

[Razor]

First of all, let us get one big point out of the way. The United States government is more than capable of planning the death of their own citizens. Pearl Harbor, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii that started the United States' involvement in World War II, has large amounts of evidence towards the idea that FDR knew of a impending attack and allowed it to happen. One being that he moved the aircraft carriers out of Pearl Harbor just before the attack, but no other boats. Hell of a coincidence that he moved the key to victory in the Pacific just in time to save our tactical advantage.

Secondly, any stance against the Government's version of events is NOT anti-American or insulting. We are searching for the truth of what happened on those days, no matter if we're searching in vain or not. We don't accept the government's story, so we search and we sift for clues. That's not being anti-American, that's being diligent and holding our government accountable for what they tell us.

And, thirdly, I would ask that anyone countering my argument would quote the paragraphs as a whole, or at least halve them up. This is going to be a long post, and I don't feel like going through a counter-post that targets each of my individual sentences. Take the information a paragraph or half-paragraph or source at a time, if you will.

------------

Let us take a look at one major point of contention, the WTC collapse. The official story is that passenger jets crashed in to the WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7. The jets were taken over by Al Qaeda militants, and the passengers were helpless to stop the planes flying head long into the buildings. The crashes caused holes in the buildings and fires to rage, negating the structural integrity of the steel-framed buildings.

That sounds logical. However, let us take a look at a report published in 1967, known as the Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper. It states:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Research.com

The Boeing 707s of the 1960s were only slightly smaller than the Boeing 767s used against the Towers.

Also, further testimony from a structural engineer for the WTC buildings, made in an interview in 1993. The name's John Skilling.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

Source: 9-11 Research.com

Here, in a more up-to-date testimony, the Head Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, a job that would most certainly require him to know that building inside and out, states that plane impacts shouldn't bring the Towers down. This is solid, considering the Towers are fucking skyscrapers. You would think they would be built up more to have at least a better chance of withstanding a jetliner impact. And, according to multiple engineers, it was.

I have one more interview the On-Site Construction Manager of the World Trade Center, Frank Demartini:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Source: 9/11 Research.com

Are we really going to say that 2 engineers that made the World Trade Center's structure their life and a paper that has been claimed as the "most complete and detailed [report] of any building structure" were wrong?
-----------------------

One major component of the 9/11 Government theory of events is that the fires could have eaten away at the steel frame of the building, causing the collapse. How could this have happened? Would the fires have gotten hot enough?

According to first hand testimony of firefighters who radioed down after reaching the 78th sky floor lobby (ABOVE the point of impact):

An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed.

Source:9/11 Research.com, Fire Severity

If the fires were intense enough to melt or severely weaken the steel frames, how could the firefighters have not only made it to the sky lobby, but proceed to only report "two pockets of fire?" You would think it more intense, no?

Or, how about some first hand accounts from civilians?

At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone

Source: 9/11 Research.com, Fire Severity

If there was a massive, steel-frame melting fire, how could the survivors have walked right by the impact zone in the stairwell and not report intense heat?

Now, let us assume that the jetliners were full of fuel and the conditions were perfect for the fire to reach it's optimum heat. Could it have melted or otherwise hindered the steel-frame of the buildings?

According to FEMA, no:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

Source: 9/11 Research.com, Effects of Fire on Steel

The test showed no such event in which the beams heated and broke, being reduced to piles of rubble. This, despite the fact that steel loses 90 percent of its strength when heated above 800 degrees Celsius?

Three facts, really:

* High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.

* If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.

* The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Source: 9/11 Research.com, Effects of Fire on Steel

I'm an engineer, and I understand what it means to "over-engineer" a project. You not only meet the goals outlined by the problem, but you far exceed them. Bridges and buildings are regularly over-engineered, specifically because of the fact that such structures hold the lives of humans in their hands. If they fail, the loss of life can be astounding.

------------

So. What could have collapsed the towers? Explosions, perchance?

..Not likely. Many theories about demolition have been put forward, but

Theories that the Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demoltion have been addressed by NIST and by Brent Blanchard who writes for ImplosionWorld.com. Both of the following critiques use the argument that because the destruction of the Twin Towers proceeded from top to bottom, they could not have been controlled demolitions.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, critique of Alternative Theories

What is my explanation of the collapse? There have been whisperings of renovations going on days for the attacks, during which time explosives could have been set in the main column support for the buildings. Blow the main support, you blow the building. I have no real support for this stance though, so do with it what you will.

--------------------------

Now, let us not forget the attack on the Pentagon. The official record claims a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon's west-wall. Killing 125 people in addition to those aboard the plane. Does this record match the evidence?

This is where things get mucky. The eye-witness reports claim such:

about 89--The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

at least 45--The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

at least 23--The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

at least 22--The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.

at least 17--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.

at least 12--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.

at least 11--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

at least 5--The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.

at least 2--The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.

at least 0--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

at least 0--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

at least 0--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.

at least 3--The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)

at least 1--The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)

at least 25--The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)

Source: 9/11 Research.com, Witness Testimony

When you look at these testimonies, the thought that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon is pretty legit. There are accusations of witness tampering or intimidation, but that's sheer conjecture. I'm basing this post off of the facts. Of which these witness accounts point to a jetliner impacting the Pentagon.

However, one glaring hole for me is the impact zone in the Pentagon. That hole seems off, and too narrow for a 767 jetliner. How to explain that, I dunno. I'm no structural engineer, and I won't look into that at this very moment. Xfear, if you want to tackle that go right on ahead.

If you claim all these people wrong or mistaken, you can interject a painted drone for the jetliner. That would more easily reconcile the impact hole with the object that did the impacting.

------------------

On to section number 3 (?) of these hella post. The hijacking of Flight 93. Before the plane could be crashed into the White House, a struggle in the cockpit apparently crashed the plane into some fields in Shanksville, PA. However, evidence may indicate otherwise.

For the first part, the 9/11 Commission changed the time of the crash by 3 minutes. While 3 minutes may not seem like a lot, if the favorite theory of the plane being shot down is to considered, 3 minutes is all the time in the world.

According to the Commission:

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, ... The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff's analysis of radar, the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmissions.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

However, seismologists in the area, using their seismographs and what not, have concluded differently:

Although, seismic signals across the network are not as strong and clear as the WTC case (see Kim et al., 2001), three component records at station SSPA (Δ = 107.6 km) shown in Figure 6 are quite clear. The three-component records at SSPA are dominated by strong Lg arrivals, whereas the Pg waves are difficult to discern and have amplitudes comparable to the noise level. This is typical for seismic waves generated by airplane impacts and crashes. The seismic signals marked as Sg in Figure 5 propagated from the Shanksville crash site to the stations with approximately 3.5 km/s. Hence, we infer that the Flight 93 crashed around 14:06:05±5 (UTC) (10:06:05 EDT). The uncertainty is only due to seismic velocity at the uppermost crust near the surface in which the Lg waves propagated.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

So, basically, using fancy seismographs the scientists can pinpoint the crash to within 5 seconds. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission have this in their report?

Here are other reports indicating the crash took place at 10:06 a.m., 3 minutes after the official report:

Forty-five seconds after telling Fritz to evacuate the Johnstown tower, Cleveland Air Traffic Control phoned again. "They said to disregard. The aircraft had turned to the south and they lost radar contact with him." It was 10:06 a.m.

The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday it turned over to the FBI a radar record of United Airlines Flight 93's route. The data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end at 10:06 a.m., just outside Shanksville, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

What is surprising is this: Go to Shanksville and the surrounding farm fields where people actually saw or heard the jetliner go down at roughly 10:06 that morning and there are a number of people -- including witnesses -- who also think that Flight 93 was shot down, or at least aren't ruling it out.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

The 9/11 Commission seems to be alone in their stance that the jetliner went down at 10:03 a.m.

--------------

If the 9/11 Commission purposefully moved the time of crash, what were they hiding? Well...one major theory is the "Flight 93 got shot down theory."

Local officials stated that crash debris was spread over a wide area. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, state police Major Lyle Szupinka "confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake." 1 The residential areas of Indian Lake range from three to six miles from the crash site. As noted on the pages describing Flight 93 and its crash site, there were a number of debris fields. Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main impact crater by about 2000 feet.

Source: Flight 93, Shot Down?

According to local police, debris was flung for as far away as 3 to 6 miles. How is this to happen if the plane merely crashed into the ground? Some other trauma must have occurred to the plane while in air to cause such a catastrophe.

Several eye-witness accounts claim the following:

* A white jet in pursuit of the jetliner
* Peculiar engine sounds before the crash
* Sounds of explosions before the plane fell from the sky
* Appearances that the plane suddenly began to drop vertically

Source: Flight 93, Shot Down?

So. Was Flight 93 shot down? I don't know, but there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that the plane didn't just crash into the ground. People don't just see a jet in pursuit of a jetliner, explosions going off when the problem was supposed to be nothing more than the passengers taking back the plane from the hijackers, or a plane dropping vertically from the sky if it's crashing into the ground due to a panicked hijacker's piloting of the plane down..into the ground.

------------------

And, finally, I leave you with the military response to the events in question.

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Source: 9/11 Research.com, Failure of Military Response to the Attack

According to this source, fighters are regularly scrambled to go after jetliners that go off course or lose radio contact. It occurred 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, no less. Then why were there no such orders given this fateful day?

If we are to believe General Myers, no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was attacked.

In his confirmation hearing two days after the attack, General Myers, acting head of the Joint Cheifs of Staff on the day of the attack, said he thought that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon was attacked.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

That is Version 1. Version 2?

NORAD released a press release on September 18, 2001 claiming that jets were scrambled 6 minutes after notification of AA Flight 11 was in trouble, and the very minute that the AA Flight 77 was reported as missing.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

This source seems a little troubling, given two facts. Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, hit its target at 9:37am EDT. Flight 11 was crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 local time. Why is a scramble order being given for Flight 11, when it has already hit the tower? Why is the scramble order given for Flight 77 before it has hit the Pentagon...when General Myers said the order wasn't given until after the Pentagon was hit?

And, now, for the 9/11 Commission's record of the times. According to the Commission, fighters were scrambled at the times NORAD reported. Except in this report, the Commission makes use of the term "Phantom Flight 11." This is meant to communicate that the fighters weren't scrambled for Flight 77, but rather in a search for Flight 11, which was erroneously thought to have went past New York, towards Washington.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

So. Was General Myers right? How about NORAD and the 9/11 Commission? We have two conflicting scrambling times, and a report that seeks to correct NORAD on why they sent fighters out. At any rate, why weren't fighters sent out to stop the jetliners?

..Cheney. That bastard. One eye-witness testimony claims:

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

That's right. Cheney issued a stand down order. What the hell is the vice president doing issuing orders to keep interceptors grounded?
-----

There are more elements to this conspiracy, of which I am not getting into. The main point of this post stands as such. There was sooo many loopholes in this official story, so many eye-witnessed testimonies that differ from the story, so much scientific evidence that differs from the official story...How could it be correct? How could the government's theory be correct when so much flies in it's face?

None of this is to say the government was responsible. Maybe Bush and Cheney were just caught in an incredibly detailed plot that they couldn't wiggle out of in time. Or maybe it was only Cheney and his old cronies in the CIA. Or maybe it was really was a group of Muslim extremists that crashed planes into buildings. However, I can't bring myself to believe that Muslim extremists pulled this off. If they did, it illustrates the largest group blunder in military procedures in the history of domestic security in the United States.

 

[Tastycles]

First of all, let us get one big point out of the way. The United States government is more than capable of planning the death of their own citizens. Pearl Harbor, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii that started the United States' involvement in World War II, has large amounts of evidence towards the idea that FDR knew of a impending attack and allowed it to happen. One being that he moved the aircraft carriers out of Pearl Harbor just before the attack, but no other boats. Hell of a coincidence that he moved the key to victory in the Pacific just in time to save our tactical advantage.

Yowzers. This is in no way the same thing whatsoever. FDR being fairly sure the Japanese would attack is in no way the same thing as George Bush killing 3,000 of his own people. Pearl Harbor set the US back 3 years in winning the pacific war at least, it was most definitely a bigger affair than they were expecting.

But like I said, that's not the same thing. FDR couldn't have known exactly when the Japanese would attack, if he did, then the war would have been won much quicker, because it meant that the Japanese codes had been broken.

Bush may have been expecting attack, but I sincerely doubt he knew any more than that. I don't doubt governments keep secrets, and they should, but this is too big a deal.

Secondly, any stance against the Government's version of events is NOT anti-American or insulting. We are searching for the truth of what happened on those days, no matter if we're searching in vain or not. We don't accept the government's story, so we search and we sift for clues. That's not being anti-American, that's being diligent and holding our government accountable for what they tell us.

Glancing over most of the arguments, it appears that what most of you are doing is clutching at straws.

Let us take a look at one major point of contention, the WTC collapse. The official story is that passenger jets crashed in to the WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7. The jets were taken over by Al Qaeda militants, and the passengers were helpless to stop the planes flying head long into the buildings. The crashes caused holes in the buildings and fires to rage, negating the structural integrity of the steel-framed buildings.

The plane didn't crash into WTC 7, but apart from that, yes, I think that is the official account.

That sounds logical. However, let us take a look at a report published in 1967, known as the Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper. It states:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Research.com

The Boeing 707s of the 1960s were only slightly smaller than the Boeing 767s used against the Towers.

The largest Boeing 707 ever made was 100,000 lbs lighter when loaded than the smaller of the two 767s that hit the towers. It was also slower. Those tests were designed on the assumtion of a crash, not a deliberate action, in which case the plane wouldn't be in a dive. A 767 in a dive would have somewhere in the vicinity of twice the momentum of a 707 from 1967. A pretty big difference.

Also, further testimony from a structural engineer for the WTC buildings, made in an interview in 1993. The name's John Skilling.



Source: 9-11 Research.com

Here, in a more up-to-date testimony, the Head Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, a job that would most certainly require him to know that building inside and out, states that plane impacts shouldn't bring the Towers down. This is solid, considering the Towers are fucking skyscrapers. You would think they would be built up more to have at least a better chance of withstanding a jetliner impact. And, according to multiple engineers, it was.

I have one more interview the On-Site Construction Manager of the World Trade Center, Frank Demartini:



Source: 9/11 Research.com

Are we really going to say that 2 engineers that made the World Trade Center's structure their life and a paper that has been claimed as the "most complete and detailed [report] of any building structure" were wrong?

Well, no, actually, because they weren't wrong. The impact didn't bring it down, the fire did. Most buildings would have collapsed from the impact, that the towers didn't is testament to their strength, however, those points cherry pick from the original papers. I can't for the life of me remember which one, but one of the structural architects said he knew it would fall as soon as he saw where it had hit.

One major component of the 9/11 Government theory of events is that the fires could have eaten away at the steel frame of the building, causing the collapse. How could this have happened? Would the fires have gotten hot enough?

Actually, that isn't what it says, nor is it what would have to happen. Kerosene burns at about 1000C I think, and steel would start to warp massively at 800C. With the weight it was holding, it fell.

According to first hand testimony of firefighters who radioed down after reaching the 78th sky floor lobby (ABOVE the point of impact):



Source:9/11 Research.com, Fire Severity

If the fires were intense enough to melt or severely weaken the steel frames, how could the firefighters have not only made it to the sky lobby, but proceed to only report "two pockets of fire?" You would think it more intense, no?

Well, firstly, all photographical evidence would suggest that the firefighters were mistaken

Secondly, even if they were right, the fiefighters reached there a while before they fell, the fires unquestionably spread.

Or, how about some first hand accounts from civilians?



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Fire Severity

If there was a massive, steel-frame melting fire, how could the survivors have walked right by the impact zone in the stairwell and not report intense heat?

Civilian accounts of attrocities are always really bad sources, panicking people don't make good witnesses. You're in a collapsing stairwell, what is your first reaction? It almost certainly isn't to take heed of your surroundings.

Secondly, despite the fact the images certainly suggest that whole floors were on fire, if they weren't, the people in that stairwell could have been ar enough away from the epicentre of the blaze not to feel the heat.

Now, let us assume that the jetliners were full of fuel and the conditions were perfect for the fire to reach it's optimum heat. Could it have melted or otherwise hindered the steel-frame of the buildings?

According to FEMA, no:



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Effects of Fire on Steel

The test showed no such event in which the beams heated and broke, being reduced to piles of rubble. This, despite the fact that steel loses 90 percent of its strength when heated above 800 degrees Celsius?

Three facts, really:



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Effects of Fire on Steel

I'm an engineer, and I understand what it means to "over-engineer" a project. You not only meet the goals outlined by the problem, but you far exceed them. Bridges and buildings are regularly over-engineered, specifically because of the fact that such structures hold the lives of humans in their hands. If they fail, the loss of life can be astounding.

Firstly, those tests weren't carried out with 100,000 tonnes of concrete on top of them. Secondly, the steel didn't need to collapse, just bend, once it did that, the weight would do the rest. Thirdly, localised collapse of steel leads to total structural failure.

The building was designed to withstand impact, not an impact and a two hour fire at twice the critical temperature of steel. Nobody designing the building would have expected a fire to last that long.

------------

So. What could have collapsed the towers? Explosions, perchance?

..Not likely. Many theories about demolition have been put forward, but



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, critique of Alternative Theories

What is my explanation of the collapse? There have been whisperings of renovations going on days for the attacks, during which time explosives could have been set in the main column support for the buildings. Blow the main support, you blow the building. I have no real support for this stance though, so do with it what you will.

At what point were they set off exactly? The people above the fire would have died without the collapse, the people below mostly got out anyway. The only difference doing this would have made is it may have saved some of the emergency services, who probably shouldn't have ever gone in.

--------------------------

Now, let us not forget the attack on the Pentagon. The official record claims a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon's west-wall. Killing 125 people in addition to those aboard the plane. Does this record match the evidence?

This is where things get mucky. The eye-witness reports claim such:



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Witness Testimony

When you look at these testimonies, the thought that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon is pretty legit. There are accusations of witness tampering or intimidation, but that's sheer conjecture. I'm basing this post off of the facts. Of which these witness accounts point to a jetliner impacting the Pentagon.

However, one glaring hole for me is the impact zone in the Pentagon. That hole seems off, and too narrow for a 767 jetliner. How to explain that, I dunno. I'm no structural engineer, and I won't look into that at this very moment. Xfear, if you want to tackle that go right on ahead.

It's quite easy really. The pentagon is all but bomb proof. Unlike at the WTC, the plane would not have had the momentum to go through the walls, and would have been mostly consumed in the resulting explosion. If you punh a plasterboard wall, you won't be able to fit your entire fist into the hole you make. You still punched the fucking wall.

If you claim all these people wrong or mistaken, you can interject a painted drone for the jetliner. That would more easily reconcile the impact hole with the object that did the impacting.

Of course, then you have to explain where the actual plane with the actual people went. If your going to fake a hijacking and crash, but with a real plane full of people, you should probably actually do it.

------------------

On to section number 3 (?) of these hella post. The hijacking of Flight 93. Before the plane could be crashed into the White House, a struggle in the cockpit apparently crashed the plane into some fields in Shanksville, PA. However, evidence may indicate otherwise.

For the first part, the 9/11 Commission changed the time of the crash by 3 minutes. While 3 minutes may not seem like a lot, if the favorite theory of the plane being shot down is to considered, 3 minutes is all the time in the world.

According to the Commission:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

However, seismologists in the area, using their seismographs and what not, have concluded differently:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

So, basically, using fancy seismographs the scientists can pinpoint the crash to within 5 seconds. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission have this in their report?

Here are other reports indicating the crash took place at 10:06 a.m., 3 minutes after the official report:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

The 9/11 Commission seems to be alone in their stance that the jetliner went down at 10:03 a.m.

--------------

If the 9/11 Commission purposefully moved the time of crash, what were they hiding? Well...one major theory is the "Flight 93 got shot down theory."



Source: Flight 93, Shot Down?

According to local police, debris was flung for as far away as 3 to 6 miles. How is this to happen if the plane merely crashed into the ground? Some other trauma must have occurred to the plane while in air to cause such a catastrophe.

Several eye-witness accounts claim the following:



Source: Flight 93, Shot Down?

So. Was Flight 93 shot down? I don't know, but there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that the plane didn't just crash into the ground. People don't just see a jet in pursuit of a jetliner, explosions going off when the problem was supposed to be nothing more than the passengers taking back the plane from the hijackers, or a plane dropping vertically from the sky if it's crashing into the ground due to a panicked hijacker's piloting of the plane down..into the ground.

Here I agree with you. I think it was shot down, and I think someone on the flight did call their family and reassured them with a "we'll get out of this", that got to the media, and on a day when the US needed heroes, the victims of United 93 were perfect.

And, finally, I leave you with the military response to the events in question.



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Failure of Military Response to the Attack

According to this source, fighters are regularly scrambled to go after jetliners that go off course or lose radio contact. It occurred 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, no less. Then why were there no such orders given this fateful day?

If we are to believe General Myers, no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was attacked.



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

That is Version 1. Version 2?

NORAD released a press release on September 18, 2001 claiming that jets were scrambled 6 minutes after notification of AA Flight 11 was in trouble, and the very minute that the AA Flight 77 was reported as missing.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

This source seems a little troubling, given two facts. Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, hit its target at 9:37am EDT. Flight 11 was crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 local time. Why is a scramble order being given for Flight 11, when it has already hit the tower? Why is the scramble order given for Flight 77 before it has hit the Pentagon...when General Myers said the order wasn't given until after the Pentagon was hit?

And, now, for the 9/11 Commission's record of the times. According to the Commission, fighters were scrambled at the times NORAD reported. Except in this report, the Commission makes use of the term "Phantom Flight 11." This is meant to communicate that the fighters weren't scrambled for Flight 77, but rather in a search for Flight 11, which was erroneously thought to have went past New York, towards Washington.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

So. Was General Myers right? How about NORAD and the 9/11 Commission? We have two conflicting scrambling times, and a report that seeks to correct NORAD on why they sent fighters out. At any rate, why weren't fighters sent out to stop the jetliners?

..Cheney. That bastard. One eye-witness testimony claims:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

That's right. Cheney issued a stand down order. What the hell is the vice president doing issuing orders to keep interceptors grounded?

The stand down order is obvious. When a jet blew up over a tiny scottish town it killed 11 people below. Imagine if burning pieces of metal went into, say, 40 appartment blocks. The death toll would have been much the same. Planes that go missing over cities is a very rare precedent, and I'm not sure the military would have necessarily scrambled jets. Myers is probably telling the truth, but the military don't want to be accused of inaction.

67 scramblings in 9 months is definitely, definitely less than the number of planes off course in the same time, by the way, so it isn't that unlikely that they did nothing.

-----

There are more elements to this conspiracy, of which I am not getting into. The main point of this post stands as such. There was sooo many loopholes in this official story, so many eye-witnessed testimonies that differ from the story, so much scientific evidence that differs from the official story...How could it be correct? How could the government's theory be correct when so much flies in it's face?

Eye witness testimony in cases like this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don't think you have shown a single piece of ireffutable evidence, or indeed any, that myself with a physics degree and sound engineering knowledge can't come up with a reasonable explanation for. The quotes from engineers are cherry picked and none give a clear "WTC could never have fallen down the way it did" response.

None of this is to say the government was responsible. Maybe Bush and Cheney were just caught in an incredibly detailed plot that they couldn't wiggle out of in time. Or maybe it was only Cheney and his old cronies in the CIA. Or maybe it was really was a group of Muslim extremists that crashed planes into buildings. However, I can't bring myself to believe that Muslim extremists pulled this off. If they did, it illustrates the largest group blunder in military procedures in the history of domestic security in the United States.

That's the thing. People are afraid that a bunch of men on donkeys could be responsible for this, but put it this way, Muslim extremists have managed to keep Nato and the Soviet Union, the two greatest military institutions of the 20th century bogged down in wars for at least 8 years, I don't think it is therefore that unlikely that they managed to outsmart the most lax security in the aviation world and learned to fly a plane. After all, Bin Laden could afford to pay for their flying lessons a million times over, they were trained by the CIA mostly, its really not that suprising.

 

[Razor]

Yowzers. This is in no way the same thing whatsoever. FDR being fairly sure the Japanese would attack is in no way the same thing as George Bush killing 3,000 of his own people. Pearl Harbor set the US back 3 years in winning the pacific war at least, it was most definitely a bigger affair than they were expecting.

But like I said, that's not the same thing. FDR couldn't have known exactly when the Japanese would attack, if he did, then the war would have been won much quicker, because it meant that the Japanese codes had been broken.

Bush may have been expecting attack, but I sincerely doubt he knew any more than that. I don't doubt governments keep secrets, and they should, but this is too big a deal.

Actually, we intercepted details of the attack back on November 25, 1941 that directly state an attack will take place. The public knows about them from this handy dandy Freedom of Information Act.

Source: Book on FDR's prior knowledge

I fail to see how this is any different. A man in the CIA (or FBI, can't remember which) predicted the 9/11 attacks well in advance, but his superiors shut him up..just as they did with the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Glancing over most of the arguments, it appears that what most of you are doing is clutching at straws.

Isn't that what conspiracy theorists love to do?

The plane didn't crash into WTC 7, but apart from that, yes, I think that is the official account.

Right. My bad. I was going off of memory for that part, mostly.

The largest Boeing 707 ever made was 100,000 lbs lighter when loaded than the smaller of the two 767s that hit the towers. It was also slower. Those tests were designed on the assumtion of a crash, not a deliberate action, in which case the plane wouldn't be in a dive. A 767 in a dive would have somewhere in the vicinity of twice the momentum of a 707 from 1967. A pretty big difference.

However, if you read the interviews I gave, at least one of the people interviewed said that the tower should be able to withstand multiple jet hits. The other man, Skilling I think, said that the only real dilemma from a jetliner hit would be the fuel...which would only burn up the floor and people on it, not cause the structure to collapse. And those interviews were in the 1990s, during which the people being interviewed would have obviously accounted for newer jet liners.

Actually, that isn't what it says, nor is it what would have to happen. Kerosene burns at about 1000C I think, and steel would start to warp massively at 800C. With the weight it was holding, it fell.

That is in a pristine, perfect setting.

I direct you to this article:

Popular Mechanics states that "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F". Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and kerosene ignites at 444°F (229°C) according to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html). The temperature then reached depends on the combustion rate (which depends on the oxygen supply) and the rate at which the heat generated can be dispersed. Videos of the Twin Towers show that the fires were moderate (certainly not of the "raging inferno" type) and the large volumes of black, sooty, smoke show that the fires were oxygen-deprived, not the sort of combustion that will generate high temperatures. Moreover, the jet fuel burnt itself out in about ten minutes (see below), and both buildings stood for over forty minutes thereafter.

A fire never burns hot enough to melt steel except under exceptional and controlled conditions, such as (i) in a blast furnace, where preheated air is pumped into the fire under pressure, and (ii) in an oxyacetylene torch, where oxygen is mixed with acetylene. This is why you can cook food in a steel pot over a gas flame and why jet engines can be made of steel.

Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#6

And, with the very pictures you gave me, I can prove that what they say in the quote and article is true. The smoke, a black and smooty composition, is characteristic of a fire that is starved of oxygen. A fire starved of oxygen can not hope to reach the temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, even with jet fuel as the accelerant.

Well, firstly, all photographical evidence would suggest that the firefighters were mistaken

The firefighters were mistaken after having climbed up to the top floor? What kind of firefighters climb to the top floor, start evacuation procedures, and grossly underestimate exactly how much fire is going on?

Secondly, even if they were right, the fiefighters reached there a while before they fell, the fires unquestionably spread.

Right. But a spreading fire isn't instantly hotter, which is the main point of contention here.

Civilian accounts of attrocities are always really bad sources, panicking people don't make good witnesses. You're in a collapsing stairwell, what is your first reaction? It almost certainly isn't to take heed of your surroundings.

It's enough to say "Hey, is it really hot?" If the jet fuel is burning at 800 degrees Celsius you are going to feel that heat.

Secondly, despite the fact the images certainly suggest that whole floors were on fire, if they weren't, the people in that stairwell could have been ar enough away from the epicentre of the blaze not to feel the heat.

Not necessarily. If the stairwell runs down the floors, through say, the back, and the area around the stairwell has a massive office fire going on, you're going to feel the heat. No matter if it's the entire floor or not.

Firstly, those tests weren't carried out with 100,000 tonnes of concrete on top of them. Secondly, the steel didn't need to collapse, just bend, once it did that, the weight would do the rest. Thirdly, localised collapse of steel leads to total structural failure.

And I counter with men smarter than I,

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#6

Using this data, even if the entire structure had been heated to over 500 degrees Celsius, which is a lot considering there is over 200,000 tons of steel in the building, the structure would not have collapsed.

The building was designed to withstand impact, not an impact and a two hour fire at twice the critical temperature of steel. Nobody designing the building would have expected a fire to last that long.

Actually, with the data I've given, the fires couldn't have possibly raged at a temperature even close to the critical temperature of steel..let alone double it.

At what point were they set off exactly? The people above the fire would have died without the collapse, the people below mostly got out anyway. The only difference doing this would have made is it may have saved some of the emergency services, who probably shouldn't have ever gone in.

I would wager they were set off during the final collapse of the buildings, respectively of course. Like I said, I don't have any evidence of this, so don't hold me to it like the other stuff I'm citing.

It's quite easy really. The pentagon is all but bomb proof. Unlike at the WTC, the plane would not have had the momentum to go through the walls, and would have been mostly consumed in the resulting explosion. If you punh a plasterboard wall, you won't be able to fit your entire fist into the hole you make. You still punched the fucking wall.

Wait, what? If I punch the wall at my side right now, and my fist goes through it, I can't fit my fist through the hole I make? The plane is said officially to have ran into the building, puncturing the inner walls and what not. If the plane were to do that, the hole should be large enough to at least fit the wings in, right?

Of course, then you have to explain where the actual plane with the actual people went. If your going to fake a hijacking and crash, but with a real plane full of people, you should probably actually do it.

But of course. Or kill the people. If you're already faking a massive terror attack, killing a plane load of civilians isn't high on your morality list anymore.

The stand down order is obvious. When a jet blew up over a tiny scottish town it killed 11 people below. Imagine if burning pieces of metal went into, say, 40 appartment blocks. The death toll would have been much the same. Planes that go missing over cities is a very rare precedent, and I'm not sure the military would have necessarily scrambled jets. Myers is probably telling the truth, but the military don't want to be accused of inaction.

The fact that NORAD scrambles jets for every jet liner that goes off course would beg to differ. If a jet liner goes of course, it is NORAD's responsibility as steward and safe-guard of our skies to see where it's going. The scrambling of jets is a "duh" action so that you know where the planes are. You don't have to shoot them down, just know where they are.

67 scramblings in 9 months is definitely, definitely less than the number of planes off course in the same time, by the way, so it isn't that unlikely that they did nothing.

How do you know this? It's not every time a pilot looses focus and veers by a tiny degree. They scramble when a plane is obviously off course by a wide margin, and/or the pilot refuses to respond to flight control.

Eye witness testimony in cases like this has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don't think you have shown a single piece of ireffutable evidence, or indeed any, that myself with a physics degree and sound engineering knowledge can't come up with a reasonable explanation for. The quotes from engineers are cherry picked and none give a clear "WTC could never have fallen down the way it did" response.

Well, I hope I came up with some decent rebuttals.

And also, what other way are quotes cited other than "cherry picked?" They were taken out of interviews or reports. It's not like I misrepresented the information.

That's the thing. People are afraid that a bunch of men on donkeys could be responsible for this, but put it this way, Muslim extremists have managed to keep Nato and the Soviet Union, the two greatest military institutions of the 20th century bogged down in wars for at least 8 years, I don't think it is therefore that unlikely that they managed to outsmart the most lax security in the aviation world and learned to fly a plane. After all, Bin Laden could afford to pay for their flying lessons a million times over, they were trained by the CIA mostly, its really not that suprising.

I'm aware that Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason. However, the conspiracy theory isn't based solely on "Oh my god, how could Muslim extremists from Afghanistan have done this?!" It's based on people looking at the facts, and not seeing a clear correlation. We're simply looking for that correlation.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Here we go. It is 10:46 CST right now. I expect it to be well after one AM when I finish this if we're going to do it right. I'll try to make this fun. I think I'm going to get a glass of water and perhaps a meal for nourishment while I do this.


Before this goes on, I feel it necessary to point out that I do not buy, hook, line, and sinker every bit of the government story. I feel there is some sensitive data that we probably don't need to, or just can't know. I will however prove that this was not an inside job, there were no explosives planted by the government in the buildings, and that President George W. Bush is not a mass murderer.

First of all, let us get one big point out of the way. The United States government is more than capable of planning the death of their own citizens. Pearl Harbor, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii that started the United States' involvement in World War II, has large amounts of evidence towards the idea that FDR knew of a impending attack and allowed it to happen.

There is a big difference between doing the job and allowing it to happen. There was a massive war in Europe that the US should have been involved in, however, centuries of isolationism led the American people to be anti-war. Now before you jump in and state that Bush did the same thing to enter in to Iraq, I want to point out that there was no war going on in the Middle East that we were compelled to join, there wasn't a recession, and there was no massive recession to climb out of that was caused by a blatantly bad idea like the New Deal.

One being that he moved the aircraft carriers out of Pearl Harbor just before the attack, but no other boats. Hell of a coincidence that he moved the key to victory in the Pacific just in time to save our tactical advantage.

Yeah, I've railed pretty hard against FDR's cannonization due to this. Furthermore, there are tons of memos and transmissions that were just ignored for days, including one about an intercepted transmission mentioning the whole plan.

9/11 was different. For one, the hijackers were in this country for years, while Bush had been in office for less than eight months. But it's OK, I guess he planned this while he was governor of Texas. Maybe he and Clinton, the two most powerful families in the nation planned it together with Tupac at Area 51.

Secondly, any stance against the Government's version of events is NOT anti-American or insulting.

I agree here. It's just that the people on your side tend to use this as justification of America's nastiness. I'm sure that if truthers were able to present a sound argument without, like you do, without calling for the violent overthrow of the American government.

We are searching for the truth of what happened on those days, no matter if we're searching in vain or not. We don't accept the government's story, so we search and we sift for clues. That's not being anti-American, that's being diligent and holding our government accountable for what they tell us.

Just do me a favor, and try to logically link all of the clues without using giant assumption to fill in the blank. This is the perfect time to use Ocam's Razor. The simplest explanation is probably the best one.

And, thirdly, I would ask that anyone countering my argument would quote the paragraphs as a whole, or at least halve them up. This is going to be a long post, and I don't feel like going through a counter-post that targets each of my individual sentences. Take the information a paragraph or half-paragraph or source at a time, if you will.

I can's promise this, but as much as I want to go word for word over this whole post, I don't think it will be too hard to stay close.

------------

Let us take a look at one major point of contention, the WTC collapse. The official story is that passenger jets crashed in to the WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7.

Wrong. The planes were flown into one and two. Seven collapsed because it caught on fire.

The jets were taken over by Al Qaeda militants, and the passengers were helpless to stop the planes flying head long into the buildings. The crashes caused holes in the buildings and fires to rage, negating the structural integrity of the steel-framed buildings.

I don't think this is debatable, being that there is video. Perhaps you've seen it?

That sounds logical. However, let us take a look at a report published in 1967, known as the Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper. It states:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and 9/11 Research.com

The Boeing 707s of the 1960s were only slightly smaller than the Boeing 767s used against the Towers.

Also, further testimony from a structural engineer for the WTC buildings, made in an interview in 1993. The name's John Skilling.



Source: 9-11 Research.com

Here, in a more up-to-date testimony, the Head Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, a job that would most certainly require him to know that building inside and out, states that plane impacts shouldn't bring the Towers down. This is solid, considering the Towers are fucking skyscrapers. You would think they would be built up more to have at least a better chance of withstanding a jetliner impact. And, according to multiple engineers, it was.

I have one more interview the On-Site Construction Manager of the World Trade Center, Frank Demartini:



Source: 9/11 Research.com

Are we really going to say that 2 engineers that made the World Trade Center's structure their life and a paper that has been claimed as the "most complete and detailed [report] of any building structure" were wrong?

The buildings were made to handle the impact of a Boeing 707. Using figures from Globalaircraft.org, a 767 travels 60% faster and is 30% heavier than a 707, which doubles the impact force of the 9/11 crash over that of the one they were built to withstand. It was not the impact alone that brought the buildings down. Furthermore, the plane and debris flying through the building was responsible for, according to structural engineer and forensic engineer Gene Corley, sandblasting the fireproofing off of the beams. The importance of this will become apparent in a second.
-----------------------

One major component of the 9/11 Government theory of events is that the fires could have eaten away at the steel frame of the building, causing the collapse. How could this have happened? Would the fires have gotten hot enough?

According to first hand testimony of firefighters who radioed down after reaching the 78th sky floor lobby (ABOVE the point of impact):



Source:9/11 Research.com, Fire Severity

If the fires were intense enough to melt or severely weaken the steel frames, how could the firefighters have not only made it to the sky lobby, but proceed to only report "two pockets of fire?" You would think it more intense, no?

Or, how about some first hand accounts from civilians?



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Fire Severity

If there was a massive, steel-frame melting fire, how could the survivors have walked right by the impact zone in the stairwell and not report intense heat?

Now, let us assume that the jetliners were full of fuel and the conditions were perfect for the fire to reach it's optimum heat. Could it have melted or otherwise hindered the steel-frame of the buildings?

According to FEMA, no:



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Effects of Fire on Steel

The test showed no such event in which the beams heated and broke, being reduced to piles of rubble. This, despite the fact that steel loses 90 percent of its strength when heated above 800 degrees Celsius?

Three facts, really:



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Effects of Fire on Steel

I'm an engineer, and I understand what it means to "over-engineer" a project. You not only meet the goals outlined by the problem, but you far exceed them. Bridges and buildings are regularly over-engineered, specifically because of the fact that such structures hold the lives of humans in their hands. If they fail, the loss of life can be astounding.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

This article explains how the building collapsed and what caused it.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

The heat, being different at different points in the steel structure caused it to expand at different sizes and rates. All the expansion of the steel rocks the building and and joints failed one by one. Combined with the loss of the fireproofing, after sandblasting the fireproofer away, it weakened the steel by half, according to Corley, causing it to lose the strength to support to steel above it.

------------

So. What could have collapsed the towers? Explosions, perchance?

..Not likely. Many theories about demolition have been put forward, but



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, critique of Alternative Theories

What is my explanation of the collapse? There have been whisperings of renovations going on days for the attacks, during which time explosives could have been set in the main column support for the buildings. Blow the main support, you blow the building. I have no real support for this stance though, so do with it what you will.

It would take workers months to strip the sheetrock and runs hundreds of miles of wire to time this explosion. Furthermore, engineers all agree that the building failed at the impact site. Are you telling me that a pilot, flying through a city, with his life flashing before his eyes could fly a plane directly into a building in a twenty foot window of space where the explosives were planted at the exact time the switch was thrown? This is where the conspirasists lose me. You need amazing choreography to pull this off, choreography that involves someone flying a suicide mission, twice, to pull off perfect timing in a situation with circumstances that are TBD at the time of planning. AND, all of this was planned, trained, set up, and executed between January 20 and September 11th. Right.....

--------------------------

Now, let us not forget the attack on the Pentagon. The official record claims a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon's west-wall. Killing 125 people in addition to those aboard the plane. Does this record match the evidence?

This is where things get mucky. The eye-witness reports claim such:



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Witness Testimony

When you look at these testimonies, the thought that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon is pretty legit. There are accusations of witness tampering or intimidation, but that's sheer conjecture. I'm basing this post off of the facts. Of which these witness accounts point to a jetliner impacting the Pentagon.

However, one glaring hole for me is the impact zone in the Pentagon. That hole seems off, and too narrow for a 767 jetliner. How to explain that, I dunno. I'm no structural engineer, and I won't look into that at this very moment. Xfear, if you want to tackle that go right on ahead.

If you claim all these people wrong or mistaken, you can interject a painted drone for the jetliner. That would more easily reconcile the impact hole with the object that did the impacting.

The pilot, Sgt. McGrath, who was flying the C130 that apparently shot down the plane flying into the Pentagon only saw the plane. I know, this is where truthers say he's under orders. Well, go ahead and prove the negative, prove he is lying. It is plausible, yes, but you can't prove that it happened. This is where the leaps in logic happen. The lack of a photo in a time lapse camera is explained by the fact that the plane was going 760 ft/sec. Paul Mollocker, the chief engineer for the Pentagon investigation states that the first thing that struck him when he arrives was the smell of jet fuel.

Furthermore, according to Alan Kilshire, an independent investigator stated he saw a mark where a wing would have been. Mollocker stated that there was trailer where the wing would be that was hit. As the plane flew through the building, it was shredded by the steel reinforced concrete columns. The hole was the size of the fuselage, there were marks where the wings were. Purdue University's study showed, using an animation with the schematics of the buildings how the plane was shredded, the wings collapsed into the plane, what the landing gear would have done. It ended with the landing gear making a hole in the C-Ring. This is the mysterious round hole that truthers point to as evidence of a missile.

Kilshire, the independent investigator, was a member of the party that found the black box. So, either it was a plane, or someone moves massive pieces of concrete, hid a beat up box under them, put them back, and did all this with no one noticing. Something tells me that one of the roughly kajillion federal agents around the building would have noticed this.

There is a theory that a painted drone flew into the building. Problem is, drones are tiny, jumbo jets are well, fucking jumbo.

------------------

On to section number 3 (?) of these hella post. The hijacking of Flight 93. Before the plane could be crashed into the White House, a struggle in the cockpit apparently crashed the plane into some fields in Shanksville, PA. However, evidence may indicate otherwise.

For the first part, the 9/11 Commission changed the time of the crash by 3 minutes. While 3 minutes may not seem like a lot, if the favorite theory of the plane being shot down is to considered, 3 minutes is all the time in the world.

According to the Commission:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

However, seismologists in the area, using their seismographs and what not, have concluded differently:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

So, basically, using fancy seismographs the scientists can pinpoint the crash to within 5 seconds. Why didn't the 9/11 Commission have this in their report?

Here are other reports indicating the crash took place at 10:06 a.m., 3 minutes after the official report:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth.com

The 9/11 Commission seems to be alone in their stance that the jetliner went down at 10:03 a.m.

OK, my response here is....So? So what if the plane was shot down? If it was, it was the right thing to do. I think that at that point, we were sure we were under attack, and that that plane was going to do similar damage. Would you ever get on a plane knowing that the federal government shot one down? I wouldn't. If they are hiding this, then good for them. It doesn't disprove that the country was under attack from militant Islamic terrorists. If it was shot down, and that was covered up, well, that changed nothing.


--------------

If the 9/11 Commission purposefully moved the time of crash, what were they hiding? Well...one major theory is the "Flight 93 got shot down theory."



Source: Flight 93, Shot Down?

According to local police, debris was flung for as far away as 3 to 6 miles. How is this to happen if the plane merely crashed into the ground? Some other trauma must have occurred to the plane while in air to cause such a catastrophe.

Several eye-witness accounts claim the following:



Source: Flight 93, Shot Down?

So. Was Flight 93 shot down? I don't know, but there are numerous pieces of evidence to suggest that the plane didn't just crash into the ground. People don't just see a jet in pursuit of a jetliner, explosions going off when the problem was supposed to be nothing more than the passengers taking back the plane from the hijackers, or a plane dropping vertically from the sky if it's crashing into the ground due to a panicked hijacker's piloting of the plane down..into the ground.[/quote]

The theory here is that a wide debris field proves the plane was shot down. The mayor of Indian Lake, where the six mile theory exists, basically calls this theory bullshit. First of all, the drive is six miles because it is a roundabout drive. Mapquest calls it a six mile drive, but as the crow flies, two miles.

The coroner states that there were body parts ever. We're supposed to believe that phone calls were faked. There are so many logical holes in the flight 93 portion of the conspiracy theory. I am waiting for X before I get into them.

------------------

And, finally, I leave you with the military response to the events in question.



Source: 9/11 Research.com, Failure of Military Response to the Attack

According to this source, fighters are regularly scrambled to go after jetliners that go off course or lose radio contact. It occurred 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, no less. Then why were there no such orders given this fateful day?

If we are to believe General Myers, no fighters were scrambled until after the Pentagon was attacked.



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

That is Version 1. Version 2?

NORAD released a press release on September 18, 2001 claiming that jets were scrambled 6 minutes after notification of AA Flight 11 was in trouble, and the very minute that the AA Flight 77 was reported as missing.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

This source seems a little troubling, given two facts. Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, hit its target at 9:37am EDT. Flight 11 was crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 local time. Why is a scramble order being given for Flight 11, when it has already hit the tower? Why is the scramble order given for Flight 77 before it has hit the Pentagon...when General Myers said the order wasn't given until after the Pentagon was hit?

And, now, for the 9/11 Commission's record of the times. According to the Commission, fighters were scrambled at the times NORAD reported. Except in this report, the Commission makes use of the term "Phantom Flight 11." This is meant to communicate that the fighters weren't scrambled for Flight 77, but rather in a search for Flight 11, which was erroneously thought to have went past New York, towards Washington.

Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

So. Was General Myers right? How about NORAD and the 9/11 Commission? We have two conflicting scrambling times, and a report that seeks to correct NORAD on why they sent fighters out. At any rate, why weren't fighters sent out to stop the jetliners?

..Cheney. That bastard. One eye-witness testimony claims:



Source: Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Military Response

That's right. Cheney issued a stand down order. What the hell is the vice president doing issuing orders to keep interceptors grounded?
-----

So, you're saying that the government didn't know what to do in this situation? I mean, we were attacked by wood hulled ships in 1812, so Cheney should know what to do now.

By the time the planes were found, they were over population centers. Shooting them down would have sent them falling onto neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, etc. A little bit of indecision can be expected.

Cheney issued a stand down order because Bush had not authorized shooting down planes until 10:18. At 10:31, NORAD received the order, but it was too late.

This is from a History Channel show called 9/11 Conspiracies Fact or Fiction.

There are more elements to this conspiracy, of which I am not getting into. The main point of this post stands as such. There was sooo many loopholes in this official story, so many eye-witnessed testimonies that differ from the story, so much scientific evidence that differs from the official story...How could it be correct? How could the government's theory be correct when so much flies in it's face?

Simply put, a little bit of research explains everything. The non uniformity of the fire causing inconsistent expansion of steel beams causing inconsistent weight distribution allowing the building to fall is one example. The NORAD tapes that show military air traffic analysts completely befuddled. Civilian and military air traffic controllers unable to communicate. The transponders were turned off. Planes were still in the air, over 4500 of them after the first two crashes, and NORAD was looking west as flight 93 turned east. It was a giant clusterfuck.

None of this is to say the government was responsible. Maybe Bush and Cheney were just caught in an incredibly detailed plot that they couldn't wiggle out of in time. Or maybe it was only Cheney and his old cronies in the CIA. Or maybe it was really was a group of Muslim extremists that crashed planes into buildings. However, I can't bring myself to believe that Muslim extremists pulled this off. If they did, it illustrates the largest group blunder in military procedures in the history of domestic security in the United States.

The entire United States air defense was built to stop enemy planes coming into the United States. Finding four planes with no transponders amongst the 4500 radar blips in the air was an impossible task. The events of 9/11 led to a complete overhaul of the way NORAD works. It was truly a shame, the failure of communication on 9/11, but that failure indicated nothing more than that we failed. It doesn't show how there was a conspiracy or a cover up. All it shows is that we were unprepared, off guard, and beaten for a day.

I think the largest argument against the conspiracy is that Bush was only in office for eight months. The hijackers had been here for years. It would have taken far longer than eight months to plan and choreograph this event.

Much of the conspiracy theorists information comes from events and testimony in the hours and days immediately after the events, before the rubble was even cleared. After careful analysis, the physics have all been explained. Those who continue to believe the conspiracies aren't going to have their minds changed.

2 hours on this response, so far. It is 12:30, and I am going back to check some things.

 

[Minor League Brian]

Woot Woot, I'm finally coming out of the bar room! Mostly because this interests me, but also because FTS (and I can only imagine X will be here soon) is here. I'm merely responding to you. I ain't fact huntin', South. Don't kill me, I just wanna go at it with you. And I'm completely playing the Conspiracy side, even if I don't agree with it.

Here we go. It is 10:46 CST right now. I expect it to be well after one AM when I finish this if we're going to do it right. I'll try to make this fun. I think I'm going to get a glass of water and perhaps a meal for nourishment while I do this.

Its 4:46AM EST here. I figure It'll be around 5:30 or 6 when I'm done.

Before this goes on, I feel it necessary to point out that I do not buy, hook, line, and sinker every bit of the government story. I feel there is some sensitive data that we probably don't need to, or just can't know. I will however prove that this was not an inside job, there were no explosives planted by the government in the buildings, and that President George W. Bush is not a mass murderer.

I have to agree, though the thing I read about Cheney makes me go “WTF”, I feel like I know George Bush. My old history teacher had met him quite a few times, and just from knowing a little about psychology and how the man carries himself; he's not a murder. He's a patriot, and a very laid back guy. He wasn't really fit to be President, as he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, but all in all he's a real good guy. People saying he was a murder really irritates me, he'd never harm this country intentionally.

9/11 was different. For one, the hijackers were in this country for years, while Bush had been in office for less than eight months. But it's OK, I guess he planned this while he was governor of Texas. Maybe he and Clinton, the two most powerful families in the nation planned it together with Tupac at Area 51.

This is true; how do I know this? Apparently they got visas (or lived here, I think it might have been a mixture) to attend Norther Virginia Community College, NOVA (I'm attending...2 years, shut up. I needed a job before I got to a 4 year school) and BECAUSE they got a Visa and never attended any classes, the Government is ALL over NOVA's ass about attendance (and I'm sure its more then just NOVA they do it too). If you don't show up for 3 consecutive days without notification, epically in the first 3 weeks, they report it to the Government. Not in a “ZOMGWTF!!” kind of way, but as more of an alert.

The buildings were made to handle the impact of a Boeing 707. Using figures from Globalaircraft.org, a 767 travels 60% faster and is 30% heavier than a 707, which doubles the impact force of the 9/11 crash over that of the one they were built to withstand. It was not the impact alone that brought the buildings down. Furthermore, the plane and debris flying through the building was responsible for, according to structural engineer and forensic engineer Gene Corley, sandblasting the fireproofing off of the beams. The importance of this will become apparent in a second.

You are correct with your math, but its been pointed out; these buildings were over-engineered. I mean, it doesn't matter how you spin it Mulitple 707's > 1 767. And obviously that was the case, as the building didn't fall from getting nailed by one of those big fuckers. However, just like you, I'm going to get to the Fireproofing bit in a moment.
-----------------------

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

This article explains how the building collapsed and what caused it.

Not readin' it. It'd be researching.

Okay, I lied. I skimmed over it, and its basically the same thing that's been spouted for ages. The plane took out columns, the fire got SO hot it made the rest weaken to the point of failing. I'm probably wording it wrong, but that's the jist of things, right?

The heat, being different at different points in the steel structure caused it to expand at different sizes and rates. All the expansion of the steel rocks the building and and joints failed one by one. Combined with the loss of the fireproofing, after sandblasting the fireproofer away, it weakened the steel by half, according to Corley, causing it to lose the strength to support to steel above it.

That's all well and good, but its already been pointed out; heat'll diffuse through a metal object. As it was stated, its why you can cook in a pan; the heat underneath of it will diffuse into the surrounding metal heating up the entire pan. Its why they have rubber guards on the handle, so you can pick it up. I think that'd be where the whole “The fire did it!” argument would need retweekin'. That's a big ass building, you cannot tell me it all diffused to the point that it got hot enough to bend like that.

--------------------------

It would take workers months to strip the sheetrock and runs hundreds of miles of wire to time this explosion. Furthermore, engineers all agree that the building failed at the impact site. Are you telling me that a pilot, flying through a city, with his life flashing before his eyes could fly a plane directly into a building in a twenty foot window of space where the explosives were planted at the exact time the switch was thrown? This is where the conspirasists lose me. You need amazing choreography to pull this off, choreography that involves someone flying a suicide mission, twice, to pull off perfect timing in a situation with circumstances that are TBD at the time of planning. AND, all of this was planned, trained, set up, and executed between January 20 and September 11th. Right.....

Do I find those “explosion” pockets from the building fishy? Yes. Do I agree with what you just said? Yes. However, who's to say they had to coordinate it THAT well, eh? I mean, you just gotta guess which way the plane'll come in, then from the building height you can give a rough estimate of where it'll hit. It wouldn't be too hard to put a few large remote explosives underneath the projected blast area and blow them after the hit. If the plane did so much damage, as well as the fire, it wouldn't be so hard to work it all in combination.

Basically what I'm saying is you don't wire EVERY joint, you go at it like taking a tree down. You go from the projected point, and move in some. You remove the supports there, on top of what would theoretically be lost above, and the in between wouldn't hold; it'd fall.

--------------------------

The pilot, Sgt. McGrath, who was flying the C130 that apparently shot down the plane flying into the Pentagon only saw the plane.

This is the only section I'll do this, just because you jump around so much. You CANNOT believe a soldier under the Government when an issue ABOUT the Government comes up. You just can't. It'd HAVE to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I know, this is where truthers say he's under orders. Well, go ahead and prove the negative, prove he is lying. It is plausible, yes, but you can't prove that it happened.

No, but first off; if you don't follow orders image what happens? This was (theoretically the Government that just attacked itself to spark a war. Would it be a big leap for them to discredit him? It'd be nothing for them to blast him in the media, bring up (possibly non-existent) happenings from his plans. If he suddenly did come out with the “truth”, it'd take all of an hour before he'd be the laughing stock of the nation.

This is where the leaps in logic happen. The lack of a photo in a time lapse camera is explained by the fact that the plane was going 760 ft/sec.

I have no proof of this right now, but I swear to GOD there was a photo. It was in that History channel documentary you quote later on, I swear it was. I cannot find it for the life of me, but I remember seeing it and the image looked NOTHING like a 767. What it was, I don't know, but not even the values (basically the coloring, but its shadowing and such) looked similar.

Paul Mollocker, the chief engineer for the Pentagon investigation states that the first thing that struck him when he arrives was the smell of jet fuel.

Well shit, even if it wasn't a 767, if it was a plane of any type there'd be jet fuel around. It could also be him playin' it up some. Gets his names in the books and all, more so then just the technical side.

Furthermore, according to Alan Kilshire, an independent investigator stated he saw a mark where a wing would have been. Mollocker stated that there was trailer where the wing would be that was hit. As the plane flew through the building, it was shredded by the steel reinforced concrete columns. The hole was the size of the fuselage, there were marks where the wings were. Purdue University's study showed, using an animation with the schematics of the buildings how the plane was shredded, the wings collapsed into the plane, what the landing gear would have done. It ended with the landing gear making a hole in the C-Ring. This is the mysterious round hole that truthers point to as evidence of a missile.

This is the only one I won't fight you on, I refuse to say it was a missle. The hole looks NOTHING like a missile blast. It looks like something went straight through it, not blew up the side of it. I'd be more inclined to believe a massive uniquely designed (which is possible) UAV did it.

There is a theory that a painted drone flew into the building. Problem is, drones are tiny, jumbo jets are well, fucking jumbo.

Well hell, if they orchestrated this why couldn't they have just built a jumbo drone? That's just piss poor thinkin' on your part, THAT is not so out there to be considered looney. Were America, we love making things big.

------------------

OK, my response here is....So? So what if the plane was shot down? If it was, it was the right thing to do. I think that at that point, we were sure we were under attack, and that that plane was going to do similar damage. Would you ever get on a plane knowing that the federal government shot one down? I wouldn't. If they are hiding this, then good for them. It doesn't disprove that the country was under attack from militant Islamic terrorists. If it was shot down, and that was covered up, well, that changed nothing.

This is something I think the 'Truthers' would have to agree on. It possibly saved the White House, but most importantly is it gave us Hero's. It gave us something to hold on to, it gave us hope. It showed (if this attack happened, again; fighting for the conspiracy side) that even when they come knocking on our door, our everyday people can stand up and knock them the fuck down. At a point where we had lost our “soul”, they became what we needed to rally around.


--------------

The theory here is that a wide debris field proves the plane was shot down. The mayor of Indian Lake, where the six mile theory exists, basically calls this theory bullshit. First of all, the drive is six miles because it is a roundabout drive. Mapquest calls it a six mile drive, but as the crow flies, two miles.

The coroner states that there were body parts ever. We're supposed to believe that phone calls were faked. There are so many logical holes in the flight 93 portion of the conspiracy theory. I am waiting for X before I get into them.

As you said, I'll have to wait for X as...well...I have to wait for you, though you are right. The roundabout drive thing completely through the estimations off; shotty journalism to be honest.

------------------

So, you're saying that the government didn't know what to do in this situation? I mean, we were attacked by wood hulled ships in 1812, so Cheney should know what to do now.

I'm honestly lost here. I don't get what you're saying. :S I'm going to assume you're making reference to the fact the Government didn't know how to react, which is why everything was so damn hectic. I'd have to say that's giving them too little credit, while saying they orchestrated the ENTIRE thing is giving them too much. However, I can't imagine them sitting with their finger up there ass as being something our Government would do in this situation.

By the time the planes were found, they were over population centers. Shooting them down would have sent them falling onto neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, etc. A little bit of indecision can be expected.

The pentagon has some room between it and the surrounding areas, they could have tried taking it down just in that window. At the very least, they should have had scrambled jets AROUND those planes when they were in the air; doing nothing is just...well...I'd say that's giving them too little credit.

Simply put, a little bit of research explains everything. The non uniformity of the fire causing inconsistent expansion of steel beams causing inconsistent weight distribution allowing the building to fall is one example. The NORAD tapes that show military air traffic analysts completely befuddled. Civilian and military air traffic controllers unable to communicate. The transponders were turned off. Planes were still in the air, over 4500 of them after the first two crashes, and NORAD was looking west as flight 93 turned east. It was a giant clusterfuck.

This I'll agree with, even if this was planned to an extent their's no way they had the ENTIRE network on their side. They were caught off guard, and acted poorly, however if this WAS a conspiracy of some sort it'd only take a few people feeding wrong information too instigate a total melt down.

The entire United States air defense was built to stop enemy planes coming into the United States. Finding four planes with no transponders amongst the 4500 radar blips in the air was an impossible task. The events of 9/11 led to a complete overhaul of the way NORAD works. It was truly a shame, the failure of communication on 9/11, but that failure indicated nothing more than that we failed. It doesn't show how there was a conspiracy or a cover up. All it shows is that we were unprepared, off guard, and beaten for a day.

This, I'll admit, its a great bit.

I think the largest argument against the conspiracy is that Bush was only in office for eight months. The hijackers had been here for years. It would have taken far longer than eight months to plan and choreograph this event.

I do not think Bush would have been in on it, why? He'd have to be the face of the nation, or at least face them, after the controversy and we have too many good profilers and psychologists for him to get up there and completely LIE his ass off like that. If something happened, I stand by he knew nothing about it. He's a patriot, he wouldn't hurt his country intentionally.

Much of the conspiracy theorists information comes from events and testimony in the hours and days immediately after the events, before the rubble was even cleared. After careful analysis, the physics have all been explained. Those who continue to believe the conspiracies aren't going to have their minds changed.

Eh. Both sides are so full of holes. Something happened, and I don't think anyone really knows what.

I was right! Okay, close. 5:22 I expect my rep bar to be doubled after I post this.

 

[Razor]

Right...well. I have a Calculus III test later today, so I'm going to run through this and jump to the Biological Engineering Computer Lounge to "study." If it seems rushed, sorry. I'm treating it seriously, promise. <3

Here we go. It is 10:46 CST right now. I expect it to be well after one AM when I finish this if we're going to do it right. I'll try to make this fun. I think I'm going to get a glass of water and perhaps a meal for nourishment while I do this.

I know, right? That post I gave was monstrous.

Before this goes on, I feel it necessary to point out that I do not buy, hook, line, and sinker every bit of the government story. I feel there is some sensitive data that we probably don't need to, or just can't know. I will however prove that this was not an inside job, there were no explosives planted by the government in the buildings, and that President George W. Bush is not a mass murderer.

I'm excited. However, I would like to point out that many conspiracy theories having to do with an inside job point out Cheney as the main man. Bush is relatively left out of any major planning or hideous master plan scheming. Because Cheney is fucked in the head, and evil to boot!

There is a big difference between doing the job and allowing it to happen. There was a massive war in Europe that the US should have been involved in, however, centuries of isolationism led the American people to be anti-war. Now before you jump in and state that Bush did the same thing to enter in to Iraq, I want to point out that there was no war going on in the Middle East that we were compelled to join, there wasn't a recession, and there was no massive recession to climb out of that was caused by a blatantly bad idea like the New Deal.

Oh come on. It's the same basic moral dilemma. Do I allow an attack to take place against my own countrymen, and Do I perpetrate an attack against my own countrymen? Either way, you're allowing massive casualties to occur against the people you were sworn to protect. Maybe it's just the Kantian in me.

Yeah, I've railed pretty hard against FDR's cannonization due to this. Furthermore, there are tons of memos and transmissions that were just ignored for days, including one about an intercepted transmission mentioning the whole plan.

I thought I would just delete this and move on to a point we disagree on, but I feel it necessary to highlight where we agree. Don't ask me why. We actually tend to agree on a few abstract concepts, when you're not too busy calling Xfear and myself dirty communists.

9/11 was different. For one, the hijackers were in this country for years, while Bush had been in office for less than eight months. But it's OK, I guess he planned this while he was governor of Texas. Maybe he and Clinton, the two most powerful families in the nation planned it together with Tupac at Area 51.

Come on. It was Cheney. Bush isn't evil, just easily manipulated. Though, if you think about it, Tupac would totally have made an awesome cabinet member.

I agree here. It's just that the people on your side tend to use this as justification of America's nastiness. I'm sure that if truthers were able to present a sound argument without, like you do, without calling for the violent overthrow of the American government.

Yeah. I don't think America's evil, or that we deserve the terrorist threats and militant attacks against our citizens abroad. Or that the government should be dismantled. Because THAT would be treasonous thoughts, despite what the crazier conspiracy theorists love to exclaim.

Just do me a favor, and try to logically link all of the clues without using giant assumption to fill in the blank. This is the perfect time to use Ocam's Razor. The simplest explanation is probably the best one.

Oh Occam's Razor. How I love thee. <3

I can's promise this, but as much as I want to go word for word over this whole post, I don't think it will be too hard to stay close.

It's more of a "I don't want to go through 5000 sentences" than a "Oh my god, you went paragraph by paragraph. I won't respond." This was 8 pages in Word. Even a post count ****e like myself doesn't find that extra post worth it.

------------

Wrong. The planes were flown into one and two. Seven collapsed because it caught on fire.

I know, I know. It was a combination of miswording and faulty memory. Apologies.

I don't think this is debatable, being that there is video. Perhaps you've seen it?

Unless we debate the "Al Qaeda militants" and "the jetliner impacts caused the steel-frame structure to collapse" parts.

The buildings were made to handle the impact of a Boeing 707. Using figures from Globalaircraft.org, a 767 travels 60% faster and is 30% heavier than a 707, which doubles the impact force of the 9/11 crash over that of the one they were built to withstand. It was not the impact alone that brought the buildings down. Furthermore, the plane and debris flying through the building was responsible for, according to structural engineer and forensic engineer Gene Corley, sandblasting the fireproofing off of the beams. The importance of this will become apparent in a second.

Oh, a battle of the experts.

1) The statements made by Skilling and the on-site head of construction were made in the 90s if I remember correctly, and so would have taken into account newer model 767s. Not only that, but even if their statements didn't, multiple 707s impacting the structure would have been more dangerous than a single 767. That just plain makes sense.

2) Fireproofing wasn't taken into account when you consider the basic melting point of steel. It's 800 degrees Celsius. And as I said in my response to Tastycles, burning jet fuel only reaches that heat under absolutely perfect conditions. The black smoke present in all of the pictures indicates a smooty fire that is oxygen starved. And no oxygen starved fire is going to reach 800 degrees Celsius.

----------------------

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

This article explains how the building collapsed and what caused it.

Sources. You gotta love them.

The heat, being different at different points in the steel structure caused it to expand at different sizes and rates. All the expansion of the steel rocks the building and and joints failed one by one. Combined with the loss of the fireproofing, after sandblasting the fireproofer away, it weakened the steel by half, according to Corley, causing it to lose the strength to support to steel above it.

Everything I have seen states that the heat of the fire would have been spread uniformly throughout the structure, that being based off of steel's excellent heat conduction properties. No buckling or expansion would have been present.

So we have two sets of experts. One who states that the heat would have permeated throughout the structure causing no major collapses until the entirety of the 20,000 tons of steel heated past 500 degrees Celsius (PROTIP: That takes a hellacious amount of heat). We have yours, who claims the heat wouldn't traveled throughout the structure, but rather focused at a central point if I'm reading correctly. If I'm not, correct me.

I'll side with my expert, because I find it logical that heat goes throughout the entirety of a completely connected steel frame. If I'm wrong, give the article that says so. If you would, of course.
------------

It would take workers months to strip the sheetrock and runs hundreds of miles of wire to time this explosion. Furthermore, engineers all agree that the building failed at the impact site. Are you telling me that a pilot, flying through a city, with his life flashing before his eyes could fly a plane directly into a building in a twenty foot window of space where the explosives were planted at the exact time the switch was thrown? This is where the conspirasists lose me. You need amazing choreography to pull this off, choreography that involves someone flying a suicide mission, twice, to pull off perfect timing in a situation with circumstances that are TBD at the time of planning. AND, all of this was planned, trained, set up, and executed between January 20 and September 11th. Right.....

Right. Well. I said it was my own theory, backed up by exactly nothing. Never once said it was backed up by any logic or science at all. But I'm the conspiracy theorist in this thread, I get to make one outlandish statement that isn't based on any facts or figures.
--------------------------

The pilot, Sgt. McGrath, who was flying the C130 that apparently shot down the plane flying into the Pentagon only saw the plane. I know, this is where truthers say he's under orders. Well, go ahead and prove the negative, prove he is lying. It is plausible, yes, but you can't prove that it happened. This is where the leaps in logic happen. The lack of a photo in a time lapse camera is explained by the fact that the plane was going 760 ft/sec. Paul Mollocker, the chief engineer for the Pentagon investigation states that the first thing that struck him when he arrives was the smell of jet fuel.

Furthermore, according to Alan Kilshire, an independent investigator stated he saw a mark where a wing would have been. Mollocker stated that there was trailer where the wing would be that was hit. As the plane flew through the building, it was shredded by the steel reinforced concrete columns. The hole was the size of the fuselage, there were marks where the wings were. Purdue University's study showed, using an animation with the schematics of the buildings how the plane was shredded, the wings collapsed into the plane, what the landing gear would have done. It ended with the landing gear making a hole in the C-Ring. This is the mysterious round hole that truthers point to as evidence of a missile.

Kilshire, the independent investigator, was a member of the party that found the black box. So, either it was a plane, or someone moves massive pieces of concrete, hid a beat up box under them, put them back, and did all this with no one noticing. Something tells me that one of the roughly kajillion federal agents around the building would have noticed this.

There is a theory that a painted drone flew into the building. Problem is, drones are tiny, jumbo jets are well, fucking jumbo.

I never once said that the eye witnesses weren't accurate. However, if I say they are accurate here, I must move that logic to every eye-witness testimony. I can't say "Well, these witnesses were right, but those were wrong because they're human and fallible."

That's why I state that a plane most likely hit the Pentagon. However, I am bothered by the hole that was created. It wasn't big enough to even fit a jetliner, if I remember correctly. This isn't a conspiracy theory as much as I don't understand the physics. If a plane punctures the Pentagon to the point where it hits the interior walls, should it not form a hole that is big enough to later fit the plane through?

------------------

OK, my response here is....So? So what if the plane was shot down? If it was, it was the right thing to do. I think that at that point, we were sure we were under attack, and that that plane was going to do similar damage. Would you ever get on a plane knowing that the federal government shot one down? I wouldn't. If they are hiding this, then good for them. It doesn't disprove that the country was under attack from militant Islamic terrorists. If it was shot down, and that was covered up, well, that changed nothing.

It's more setting a system of actions than anything else. You know. The dastardly government set up 9/11, so they would have no problem killing their own citizens to make it seem like terrorists just crashed the plane into the ground.

--------------

The theory here is that a wide debris field proves the plane was shot down. The mayor of Indian Lake, where the six mile theory exists, basically calls this theory bullshit. First of all, the drive is six miles because it is a roundabout drive. Mapquest calls it a six mile drive, but as the crow flies, two miles.

The coroner states that there were body parts ever. We're supposed to believe that phone calls were faked. There are so many logical holes in the flight 93 portion of the conspiracy theory. I am waiting for X before I get into them.

Please do. I had heard of that critique to the Flight 93 conspiracy, but chose to forget it as I was writing that post.

Perhaps Xfear can cover up that hole of mine. If not, point conceded I 'spose.

------------------

So, you're saying that the government didn't know what to do in this situation? I mean, we were attacked by wood hulled ships in 1812, so Cheney should know what to do now.

By the time the planes were found, they were over population centers. Shooting them down would have sent them falling onto neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, etc. A little bit of indecision can be expected.

Cheney issued a stand down order because Bush had not authorized shooting down planes until 10:18. At 10:31, NORAD received the order, but it was too late.

This is from a History Channel show called 9/11 Conspiracies Fact or Fiction.

He shouldn't know exactly what to do, no. But he shouldn't issue a stand down order to keep all jets on the ground. Allow them to scramble and at least find the planes, so as to be in position when Bush finally gives the kill order.

..That is if Bush is the one that had to give that order, as I believe so. If he didn't have to, then Cheney could have given it, no? Or General Myers?

Simply put, a little bit of research explains everything. The non uniformity of the fire causing inconsistent expansion of steel beams causing inconsistent weight distribution allowing the building to fall is one example.
The NORAD tapes that show military air traffic analysts completely befuddled. Civilian and military air traffic controllers unable to communicate. The transponders were turned off. Planes were still in the air, over 4500 of them after the first two crashes, and NORAD was looking west as flight 93 turned east. It was a giant clusterfuck.

The entire United States air defense was built to stop enemy planes coming into the United States. Finding four planes with no transponders amongst the 4500 radar blips in the air was an impossible task. The events of 9/11 led to a complete overhaul of the way NORAD works. It was truly a shame, the failure of communication on 9/11, but that failure indicated nothing more than that we failed. It doesn't show how there was a conspiracy or a cover up. All it shows is that we were unprepared, off guard, and beaten for a day.

Yeah well, my experts are smarter than yours!

If the theory I'm expousing is false, then yes. It was a giant clusterfuck. If it's right, however, it at least calls into question how the Twin Towers fell. Once we establish that the ASCE and 9/11 Commission were at the very least confused with at least some of their facts, at the very most accomplices to the plan and reporting false facts; it calls into question why the government would give such a faulty explanation. Are they covering something up?

I think the largest argument against the conspiracy is that Bush was only in office for eight months. The hijackers had been here for years. It would have taken far longer than eight months to plan and choreograph this event.

Much of the conspiracy theorists information comes from events and testimony in the hours and days immediately after the events, before the rubble was even cleared. After careful analysis, the physics have all been explained. Those who continue to believe the conspiracies aren't going to have their minds changed.

The physics that I propose for the Twin Towers is still valid. There has been nothing said that will invalidate what my experts said.

As far as the Pentagon attack, I sided with the jetliner impact. I'm more questioning the motives of the event in the parts after my Twin Tower impact section.

2 hours on this response, so far. It is 12:30, and I am going back to check some things.

It's half an hour past noon, and I have to go. I started at 11:55am, so yeah. We're putting all kinds of time into this go around.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Woot Woot, I'm finally coming out of the bar room! Mostly because this interests me, but also because FTS (and I can only imagine X will be here soon) is here. I'm merely responding to you. I ain't fact huntin', South. Don't kill me, I just wanna go at it with you. And I'm completely playing the Conspiracy side, even if I don't agree with it.

Welcome to the Lounge.

Its 4:46AM EST here. I figure It'll be around 5:30 or 6 when I'm done.

I love the people are putting two or three hours into posts in here. This is why this is the best NWS on the boards. Everyone brings their A game, and the quality of the discussion show it.

I have to agree, though the thing I read about Cheney makes me go “WTF”, I feel like I know George Bush. My old history teacher had met him quite a few times, and just from knowing a little about psychology and how the man carries himself; he's not a murder. He's a patriot, and a very laid back guy. He wasn't really fit to be President, as he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box, but all in all he's a real good guy. People saying he was a murder really irritates me, he'd never harm this country intentionally.

I think he did some good that got overshadowed by the anti-war zealots. I think he made some mistakes too. I don't think anyone can argue his patriotism, just the means to show it.

This is true; how do I know this? Apparently they got visas (or lived here, I think it might have been a mixture) to attend Norther Virginia Community College, NOVA (I'm attending...2 years, shut up. I needed a job before I got to a 4 year school) and BECAUSE they got a Visa and never attended any classes, the Government is ALL over NOVA's ass about attendance (and I'm sure its more then just NOVA they do it too). If you don't show up for 3 consecutive days without notification, epically in the first 3 weeks, they report it to the Government. Not in a “ZOMGWTF!!” kind of way, but as more of an alert.

Well, there's the flight school records too. There are ATM withdraws and bank records. There is a mountain of evidence stating that they were here.

You are correct with your math, but its been pointed out; these buildings were over-engineered. I mean, it doesn't matter how you spin it Mulitple 707's > 1 767. And obviously that was the case, as the building didn't fall from getting nailed by one of those big fuckers. However, just like you, I'm going to get to the Fireproofing bit in a moment.

It was a combination of the impact and the fires.
-----------------------

Not readin' it. It'd be researching.

Okay, I lied. I skimmed over it, and its basically the same thing that's been spouted for ages. The plane took out columns, the fire got SO hot it made the rest weaken to the point of failing. I'm probably wording it wrong, but that's the jist of things, right?

Not exactly, but close. The articles posits that different levels of heat caused different amounts steel expansion amongst the support beams holding the building up. Once the fires started to cool, and the steel began to retract, the building, which had broken beams and a giant hole in the side of the building just wasn't supported evenly. The physics of a structure like that require uniformity, uniformity amongst the spaces between the beams, the size of the beams, the weight distribution around the building, etc. When inconsistency enters the equation, the building falls.

That's all well and good, but its already been pointed out; heat'll diffuse through a metal object. As it was stated, its why you can cook in a pan; the heat underneath of it will diffuse into the surrounding metal heating up the entire pan. Its why they have rubber guards on the handle, so you can pick it up. I think that'd be where the whole “The fire did it!” argument would need retweekin'. That's a big ass building, you cannot tell me it all diffused to the point that it got hot enough to bend like that.

See above. Furthermore, a pan isn't supporting 500,000 tons of mass.
--------------------------

Do I find those “explosion” pockets from the building fishy? Yes.

When it started to fall, air got pushed down and blew out the windows. That's not very fishy. That air had to go somewhere.

Do I agree with what you just said? Yes. However, who's to say they had to coordinate it THAT well, eh? I mean, you just gotta guess which way the plane'll come in, then from the building height you can give a rough estimate of where it'll hit. It wouldn't be too hard to put a few large remote explosives underneath the projected blast area and blow them after the hit. If the plane did so much damage, as well as the fire, it wouldn't be so hard to work it all in combination.

This is where I leave it to the conspiracy theorists to disprove the physics of MIT, Purdue, the government, etc. Just saying the government lied doesn't work for me. I need facts. I showed up above how the fireproofer got sandblasted off the beams and how the expansion and retraction of the steel made for uneven weight distribution.

Basically what I'm saying is you don't wire EVERY joint, you go at it like taking a tree down. You go from the projected point, and move in some. You remove the supports there, on top of what would theoretically be lost above, and the in between wouldn't hold; it'd fall.

When you know down a tree, it falls in one big piece, to the side. It doesn't collapse upon itself, so, yes, you would need to wire every joint.

--------------------------

This is the only section I'll do this, just because you jump around so much. You CANNOT believe a soldier under the Government when an issue ABOUT the Government comes up. You just can't. It'd HAVE to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Prove it. That's all I want. If the government is compelling people to lie, I want to see evidence. I saw the evidence in the Clinton impeachment trial. I haven't seen any here.

No, but first off; if you don't follow orders image what happens? This was (theoretically the Government that just attacked itself to spark a war. Would it be a big leap for them to discredit him? It'd be nothing for them to blast him in the media, bring up (possibly non-existent) happenings from his plans. If he suddenly did come out with the “truth”, it'd take all of an hour before he'd be the laughing stock of the nation.

Norm Minetta went in front of Congress during the commission hearings and gave testimony that would seem to implicate the Vice-President, and there was never a campaign to publicly discredit him. He said what he said, and that was it.

I have no proof of this right now, but I swear to GOD there was a photo. It was in that History channel documentary you quote later on, I swear it was. I cannot find it for the life of me, but I remember seeing it and the image looked NOTHING like a 767. What it was, I don't know, but not even the values (basically the coloring, but its shadowing and such) looked similar.

There was a picture of the wall, and then a picture of an explosion. The jet was going too fast to be caught on camera. There were eye witnesses who saw a jet.

Well shit, even if it wasn't a 767, if it was a plane of any type there'd be jet fuel around. It could also be him playin' it up some. Gets his names in the books and all, more so then just the technical side.

This is another conspiracy claim. Prove this please.

This is the only one I won't fight you on, I refuse to say it was a missle. The hole looks NOTHING like a missile blast. It looks like something went straight through it, not blew up the side of it. I'd be more inclined to believe a massive uniquely designed (which is possible) UAV did it.




Well hell, if they orchestrated this why couldn't they have just built a jumbo drone? That's just piss poor thinkin' on your part, THAT is not so out there to be considered looney. Were America, we love making things big.

Except that everyone who was there mentions seeing body parts strewn about the area.
------------------

This is something I think the 'Truthers' would have to agree on. It possibly saved the White House, but most importantly is it gave us Hero's. It gave us something to hold on to, it gave us hope. It showed (if this attack happened, again; fighting for the conspiracy side) that even when they come knocking on our door, our everyday people can stand up and knock them the fuck down. At a point where we had lost our “soul”, they became what we needed to rally around.

Some people claim that the plane went down in Cleveland. I think someone would have noticed this.

--------------

As you said, I'll have to wait for X as...well...I have to wait for you, though you are right. The roundabout drive thing completely through the estimations off; shotty journalism to be honest.

The Truth movement is based on shotty journalism.

------------------

I'm honestly lost here. I don't get what you're saying. :S I'm going to assume you're making reference to the fact the Government didn't know how to react, which is why everything was so damn hectic. I'd have to say that's giving them too little credit, while saying they orchestrated the ENTIRE thing is giving them too much. However, I can't imagine them sitting with their finger up there ass as being something our Government would do in this situation.

Finger in the ass seems exactly like what they would be doing. The President is in the air, NORAD can't find the planes, no one knew who was involved, getting every plane in the air a landing strip would be a logistical nightmare, and there was no nation or declaration of war. This situation had no precendent, and I'm sure that any contingency plan that truthers will bring up was thrown out the window the second the real world application of it became apparent that it was not plausible. This isn't like a foreign invasion where there are ships and tanks and troops. There could be more on any one of those planes, and there was no clue what was going to happen next.

The pentagon has some room between it and the surrounding areas, they could have tried taking it down just in that window. At the very least, they should have had scrambled jets AROUND those planes when they were in the air; doing nothing is just...well...I'd say that's giving them too little credit.

They did scramble jets. The order to shoot them down was given to NORAD at 10:31 am, and at that point it was too late.

This I'll agree with, even if this was planned to an extent their's no way they had the ENTIRE network on their side. They were caught off guard, and acted poorly, however if this WAS a conspiracy of some sort it'd only take a few people feeding wrong information too instigate a total melt down.

OK, you have a point here. Now, who are these people, what information did they give, and how did this completely slip by the people at the top? This is where conspiracy theories fail. The idea sounds believable, but the evidence doesn't exist.

This, I'll admit, its a great bit.

It is a new kind of war.

I do not think Bush would have been in on it, why? He'd have to be the face of the nation, or at least face them, after the controversy and we have too many good profilers and psychologists for him to get up there and completely LIE his ass off like that. If something happened, I stand by he knew nothing about it. He's a patriot, he wouldn't hurt his country intentionally.

The poor guy was just lost. I don't know how anyone could have done better on that day.

Eh. Both sides are so full of holes. Something happened, and I don't think anyone really knows what.

I think that there is a lot of information which is sensitive to national security that can't be released, and I bet a lot of that would fill in the holes.

I was right! Okay, close. 5:22 I expect my rep bar to be doubled after I post this.

When you don't do research, I don't have to do research, and it makes for a much faster response.

 

[Tastycles]

Actually, we intercepted details of the attack back on November 25, 1941 that directly state an attack will take place. The public knows about them from this handy dandy Freedom of Information Act.

Source: Book on FDR's prior knowledge

Ok, but that's not what we're here to debate. Again, I don't hesitate to point out that knowing about something and letting it happen is a very different thing from actually doing it, which is what you are suggesting.

I fail to see how this is any different. A man in the CIA (or FBI, can't remember which) predicted the 9/11 attacks well in advance, but his superiors shut him up..just as they did with the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Because that is entirely a different thing to actually knowing where and when, as FDR appeared to. There are so many threats against western nations it isn't feasible to follow them up.

You're contridicting yourself anyway, how can they have known that Islamists were going to fly planes into the towers if they didn't really do it and the government blew it up themselves?

However, if you read the interviews I gave, at least one of the people interviewed said that the tower should be able to withstand multiple jet hits. The other man, Skilling I think, said that the only real dilemma from a jetliner hit would be the fuel...which would only burn up the floor and people on it, not cause the structure to collapse. And those interviews were in the 1990s, during which the people being interviewed would have obviously accounted for newer jet liners.

Firstly, for literally the fifth time, the impact didn't bring the building down, the fire did. Secondly, those jet liner impact theories were considering an accident. In that case, a level or rising plane would have hit the tower, probably not dead in the most vulnerable part of the tower as well. The aircraft that hit the tower were in a dive, and hit the weakest point on a tower, about two thirds up.

Thirdly, these models are often done to the best estimate, you can't know what is going to happen. Nobody thought Titanic would sink. It did. Nobody thought the coal silo would collapse at Aberfan. Engineers are human, they make mistakes, this is clearly an example.

That is in a pristine, perfect setting.

I direct you to this article:



Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#6

And, with the very pictures you gave me, I can prove that what they say in the quote and article is true. The smoke, a black and smooty composition, is characteristic of a fire that is starved of oxygen. A fire starved of oxygen can not hope to reach the temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, even with jet fuel as the accelerant.

There is a million reasons why fire has smoke. There was a hell of a lot more on fire in that building than jet fuel. If you burn, say, paper and plastic in an oxygen tank, you get black smoke. Kerosene was the accelerant, it wasn't the only thing burning. I draw your attention to the picture again. You do not get fire with a glow that intense at low temperatures.

The firefighters were mistaken after having climbed up to the top floor? What kind of firefighters climb to the top floor, start evacuation procedures, and grossly underestimate exactly how much fire is going on?

The same kind who reach the 78th floor of a 110 floor building and think they are at the top, I imagine.

Right. But a spreading fire isn't instantly hotter, which is the main point of contention here.

No, but if it grew, it means it was getting hotter. Not instant, but definitely doing so, otherwise fires would go out when they spread by basic energy conservation. I'm sure the people of Greece and California can tell you that isn't the case.

It's enough to say "Hey, is it really hot?" If the jet fuel is burning at 800 degrees Celsius you are going to feel that heat.

If you are worrying about your life, the last thing you are going to be doing is taking notes. Whether it was 250C or 800C it would have been unbelievably hot in a small stairwell. There was definitely a fire. Fire is hot. The fact the people who didn't notice any heat at all would probably suggest that they were focussing on staying alive. And rightfully so.

Not necessarily. If the stairwell runs down the floors, through say, the back, and the area around the stairwell has a massive office fire going on, you're going to feel the heat. No matter if it's the entire floor or not.

Exactly. There was definitely a fire, look at the pictures, so the fact they felt no heat would suggest they aren't reliable.

And I counter with men smarter than I,



Source: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm#6

Using this data, even if the entire structure had been heated to over 500 degrees Celsius, which is a lot considering there is over 200,000 tons of steel in the building, the structure would not have collapsed.

If the steel was built in an interconnected lattice, then this would be true, but that isn't how it was built. Concrete is a good insulator, hence why the buckkling remained

Actually, with the data I've given, the fires couldn't have possibly raged at a temperature even close to the critical temperature of steel..let alone double it.

Why? For fire you need air, which was in abundance thanks to high winds at that height and the fact it was outside, and fuel, which was in abundance, because it was a burning tank of jet fuel. Fires get hotter and hotter as they ignite more things and more energy is released by combustion. Fires get hotter and hotter, and after two hours of kerosene burning, the temperature would have been close to 1000C, almost twice the critical temperature.

I would wager they were set off during the final collapse of the buildings, respectively of course. Like I said, I don't have any evidence of this, so don't hold me to it like the other stuff I'm citing.

What explosive can withstand a two hour fire without igniting, but also without its ignition switch being damaged? It takes about 2 months to rig a building to blow up.

Wait, what? If I punch the wall at my side right now, and my fist goes through it, I can't fit my fist through the hole I make? The plane is said officially to have ran into the building, puncturing the inner walls and what not. If the plane were to do that, the hole should be large enough to at least fit the wings in, right?

Not if it goes right through. If ony your front knuckle goes through, then the hole wouldn't be big enough for your arm. No massive collision results in a Wile E. Coyote esque hole in a wall.

But of course. Or kill the people. If you're already faking a massive terror attack, killing a plane load of civilians isn't high on your morality list anymore.

But why? Why make a drone if you were going to destroy the real aircraft anyway?

The fact that NORAD scrambles jets for every jet liner that goes off course would beg to differ. If a jet liner goes of course, it is NORAD's responsibility as steward and safe-guard of our skies to see where it's going. The scrambling of jets is a "duh" action so that you know where the planes are. You don't have to shoot them down, just know where they are.

No they don't. They scramble the jets when they think there is a problem. Commercial jets were almost never intercepted because they weren't perceived as a threat. If you sincerely believe that only 67 filghts went off course in a year in Canada and the US, you are very naive to the intricasies (sp?) of air travel. There are more than that many near misses a year, which is just one type of off course incident. NORAD rarely reacted to anything involving internal commercial flights.

How do you know this? It's not every time a pilot looses focus and veers by a tiny degree. They scramble when a plane is obviously off course by a wide margin, and/or the pilot refuses to respond to flight control.

And also, what other way are quotes cited other than "cherry picked?" They were taken out of interviews or reports. It's not like I misrepresented the information.

Because none of the experts say "this didn't happen in the twin towers", they are mostly taken from papers talking about hypotheticals or something out of context.

I'm aware that Afghanistan is known as the "Graveyard of Empires" for a reason. However, the conspiracy theory isn't based solely on "Oh my god, how could Muslim extremists from Afghanistan have done this?!" It's based on people looking at the facts, and not seeing a clear correlation. We're simply looking for that correlation.

When a plane hits a building, the building normally falls down. That should be enough correlation. The fact that you have failed to come up with anything believable or remotely as satisfying as the explanation given. Until someone comes up with a believable alternative, I'll stick to what we all saw.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Right...well. I have a Calculus III test later today, so I'm going to run through this and jump to the Biological Engineering Computer Lounge to "study." If it seems rushed, sorry. I'm treating it seriously, promise. <3



I know, right? That post I gave was monstrous.

Yeah, I feel like there is something I could be doing with my time, but I just mowed my yard and took the biggest bong rip ever, so I don't think I'm going anywhere for a minute.

I'm excited. However, I would like to point out that many conspiracy theories having to do with an inside job point out Cheney as the main man. Bush is relatively left out of any major planning or hideous master plan scheming. Because Cheney is fucked in the head, and evil to boot!

OK, Cheney was the mastermind. He would be having to give Bush orders, and Bush would have to follow them. If you are assuming that George Bush just did whatever Cheney told him, you are drinking a little bit too much of the Kool-Aid. Cheney may have given heavily considered advice, but those two disagreed publicly several times, and I don't think Bush was a sick enough individual to sit idly by and let thousands of people die.

Oh come on. It's the same basic moral dilemma. Do I allow an attack to take place against my own countrymen, and Do I perpetrate an attack against my own countrymen? Either way, you're allowing massive casualties to occur against the people you were sworn to protect. Maybe it's just the Kantian in me.

It's completely different. Using Kant is bad here, being that the categorical imperative leaves no room of subjectivity in moral matters. No morals are absolute, and situation has to dictate judgment in the name of self-preservation. That being said, prove to me that it perpetrated against us. Even if the building was rigged to blow, I would put that on Al-Quaeda too.

I thought I would just delete this and move on to a point we disagree on, but I feel it necessary to highlight where we agree. Don't ask me why. We actually tend to agree on a few abstract concepts, when you're not too busy calling Xfear and myself dirty communists.

I believe the word was pinko commie bastards.

Come on. It was Cheney. Bush isn't evil, just easily manipulated. Though, if you think about it, Tupac would totally have made an awesome cabinet member.

Moving on.....

Yeah. I don't think America's evil, or that we deserve the terrorist threats and militant attacks against our citizens abroad. Or that the government should be dismantled. Because THAT would be treasonous thoughts, despite what the crazier conspiracy theorists love to exclaim.

It's so hard to separate all of you.

Oh Occam's Razor. How I love thee. <3

Yeah, it seems to always just apply.

It's more of a "I don't want to go through 5000 sentences" than a "Oh my god, you went paragraph by paragraph. I won't respond." This was 8 pages in Word. Even a post count ****e like myself doesn't find that extra post worth it.

I'm already taking a break.

------------

I know, I know. It was a combination of miswording and faulty memory. Apologies.

Forgiven.

Unless we debate the "Al Qaeda militants" and "the jetliner impacts caused the steel-frame structure to collapse" parts.

Then fire caused it, the impact started it.

Oh, a battle of the experts.

1) The statements made by Skilling and the on-site head of construction were made in the 90s if I remember correctly, and so would have taken into account newer model 767s. Not only that, but even if their statements didn't, multiple 707s impacting the structure would have been more dangerous than a single 767. That just plain makes sense.

Well, it would spread out an equal amount of damage, so I think it wouldn't. Two left hands to the face don't do as much damage as one big right.

2) Fireproofing wasn't taken into account when you consider the basic melting point of steel. It's 800 degrees Celsius. And as I said in my response to Tastycles, burning jet fuel only reaches that heat under absolutely perfect conditions. The black smoke present in all of the pictures indicates a smooty fire that is oxygen starved. And no oxygen starved fire is going to reach 800 degrees Celsius.

But the theory used to decide this takes into account jet fuel, and that is not the only gas that was burning. People add kerosene to jet fuel as additive for extra thrust. That means it burns hotter.

----------------------

Sources. You gotta love them.



Everything I have seen states that the heat of the fire would have been spread uniformly throughout the structure, that being based off of steel's excellent heat conduction properties. No buckling or expansion would have been present.

The beams were wrapped in conrete and built around. There weren't cross beams to radiate the heat, so each beam would be burning individually. Heat spreads, but doesn't radiate in this situation.

[/quote]So we have two sets of experts. One who states that the heat would have permeated throughout the structure causing no major collapses until the entirety of the 20,000 tons of steel heated past 500 degrees Celsius (PROTIP: That takes a hellacious amount of heat). We have yours, who claims the heat wouldn't traveled throughout the structure, but rather focused at a central point if I'm reading correctly. If I'm not, correct me.[/quote]

The heat didn't spread consistently, so different beams were bearing more load.

I'll side with my expert, because I find it logical that heat goes throughout the entirety of a completely connected steel frame. If I'm wrong, give the article that says so. If you would, of course.

I'm telling you, the building style didn't lend it self to even radiation.
------------

Right. Well. I said it was my own theory, backed up by exactly nothing. Never once said it was backed up by any logic or science at all. But I'm the conspiracy theorist in this thread, I get to make one outlandish statement that isn't based on any facts or figures.

Agreed.
--------------------------

I never once said that the eye witnesses weren't accurate. However, if I say they are accurate here, I must move that logic to every eye-witness testimony. I can't say "Well, these witnesses were right, but those were wrong because they're human and fallible."

Occam's razor. Go with what most of the people said. Odds are they had better views. Anyone who was around was going to testify that they saw it, even if it was a fleeting glimpse. People like to centralize themselves in a story.

That's why I state that a plane most likely hit the Pentagon. However, I am bothered by the hole that was created. It wasn't big enough to even fit a jetliner, if I remember correctly. This isn't a conspiracy theory as much as I don't understand the physics. If a plane punctures the Pentagon to the point where it hits the interior walls, should it not form a hole that is big enough to later fit the plane through?

It was big enough to have been hit by the nose of a plane. That thing started to shred the instant it made impact.

------------------

It's more setting a system of actions than anything else. You know. The dastardly government set up 9/11, so they would have no problem killing their own citizens to make it seem like terrorists just crashed the plane into the ground.

And in the half an hour Bush had in office to plan this, that's feasible. Maybe Cheney was planning and funding this mission on the off hand chance the nation would elect a candidate from the opposite party of an incredibly popular and accomplished President.

--------------

Please do. I had heard of that critique to the Flight 93 conspiracy, but chose to forget it as I was writing that post.

Perhaps Xfear can cover up that hole of mine. If not, point conceded I 'spose.

We can keep waiting here.
------------------

He shouldn't know exactly what to do, no. But he shouldn't issue a stand down order to keep all jets on the ground. Allow them to scramble and at least find the planes, so as to be in position when Bush finally gives the kill order.

There were 4500 aircraft in the air. They were looking to the west for flight 93, and it had turned to go east. Finding planes that aren't transmitting a signal in that situation was impossible.

..That is if Bush is the one that had to give that order, as I believe so. If he didn't have to, then Cheney could have given it, no? Or General Myers?

The Vice=President does not have clearance to initiate an action. In the absence of the President, it is the National Security Advisor, in this case, Secrretary Rice, but the President wasn't absent, he was inactive. Probably had something to do with uncertainty.

Yeah well, my experts are smarter than yours!

If the theory I'm expousing is false, then yes. It was a giant clusterfuck. If it's right, however, it at least calls into question how the Twin Towers fell. Once we establish that the ASCE and 9/11 Commission were at the very least confused with at least some of their facts, at the very most accomplices to the plan and reporting false facts; it calls into question why the government would give such a faulty explanation. Are they covering something up?

Attacks like this aren't supposed to happen. Buildings like that aren't supposed to crumble. They did, and it's hard to determine why. Filling the void with these wild theories doesn't always hurt. We can usually use them to find the real answer.

The physics that I propose for the Twin Towers is still valid. There has been nothing said that will invalidate what my experts said.

The beams were built, wrapped in concrete, then rebar and more conrete were wrapped around the concrete beams. They were not cirsscrossed by conductive beams.

As far as the Pentagon attack, I sided with the jetliner impact. I'm more questioning the motives of the event in the parts after my Twin Tower impact section.

Grasping at straws.

It's half an hour past noon, and I have to go. I started at 11:55am, so yeah. We're putting all kinds of time into this go around.

My head hurts.

 

[Razor]

Yeah, I feel like there is something I could be doing with my time, but I just mowed my yard and took the biggest bong rip ever, so I don't think I'm going anywhere for a minute.

I'm building a catapult in an hour and a half. Hopefully I can get this and my Batman thread done...probably not though.

OK, Cheney was the mastermind. He would be having to give Bush orders, and Bush would have to follow them. If you are assuming that George Bush just did whatever Cheney told him, you are drinking a little bit too much of the Kool-Aid. Cheney may have given heavily considered advice, but those two disagreed publicly several times, and I don't think Bush was a sick enough individual to sit idly by and let thousands of people die.

Bush was easily manipulated, of that even Cheney has hinted at. Didn't he say a few months ago that during the last year or so in office Bush started to not listen as much to him? It was around the time that Cheney announced a "tell-all" memoir or some shit like that. That at least implies that Bush trusted Cheney, and would believe anything Cheney told him. Bush didn't have to know, Cheney just had to lie.

It's completely different. Using Kant is bad here, being that the categorical imperative leaves no room of subjectivity in moral matters. No morals are absolute, and situation has to dictate judgment in the name of self-preservation. That being said, prove to me that it perpetrated against us. Even if the building was rigged to blow, I would put that on Al-Quaeda too.

Morals are always absolute, or they aren't morals. You can't suspend morality just because. And no matter what the moral discussion is, that moral discussion started because the act can be considered cloudy at best. The only thing that separates a Utilitarian and a Kantian is that the utilitarian believes the ends justify the means, and the Kantian believes the only truly good ethical outcome comes from ethical actions.

Prove Al-Qaeda wasn't in on the attacks? Well...I can link Osama Bin Laden to the CIA as a patsy up TO the 9/11 attacks. What makes it impossible that Bin Laden wasn't ordered by the CIA to commit the attack, then used as a very handy scapegoat?

The link goes back to the Russian war in Afghanistan, and claims that the CIA funded Osama Bin Laden against the Russians. Not only that, but Al Qaeda started as a joint CIA/Mujahadeen fighting force against the Russians. The CIA kept them around after the Russians pulled out...then all of a sudden 9/11 happens, Osama Bin Laden is a villain, and the Middle East hates the West.

[youtube]0UGXVic15ho[/youtube]​

This is an interview from Good Morning America. It pretty much shows that the generic public doesn't accept Bin Laden...though, from what the government would have told us back then, shouldn't they be?

I believe the word was pinko commie bastards.

Ah. Apologies.

Moving on.....

Oh come on! You KNOW Tupac would be an awesome Secretary of the Interior.

It's so hard to separate all of you.

Just as it's hard to separate you from all the conservatives who would claim my treasonous because I actually don't hate the Obama Healthcare plan.

I'm already taking a break.

Don't be such a bitch. Push through, like a man would.

------------

Then fire caused it, the impact started it.

I still don't believe that is the case.

Well, it would spread out an equal amount of damage, so I think it wouldn't. Two left hands to the face don't do as much damage as one big right.

Eh. So one big plane hitting a floor of a building would cause it to collapse, when multiple planes that are only a bit smaller would allow it to stand? How does that make sense anywhere?

But the theory used to decide this takes into account jet fuel, and that is not the only gas that was burning. People add kerosene to jet fuel as additive for extra thrust. That means it burns hotter.

Kerosene jet fuel is one type of Jet Fuel, yes. And that is what is used commercially, is it not? And the calculations took into account just this type of jet fuel.

Let's say that the equations didn't take into account kerosene. Have you ever seen steel melt due to fire? Your barbeque grill, your steel pots, your pans, anything steel related? Or even warp due to the heat.

Now, that steel isn't near the grade used in the WTC, no? If that steel doesn't melt, what makes steel used to support a sky-scraper melt under fire?

Also, you failed to acknowledge my earlier assertion about the smooty fire. Even if kerosene wasn't taken into account, it's burning point while in an oxygen starved fire wouldn't possibly reach the heat levels to melt, warp, or buckle a steel beam.
----------------------

The beams were wrapped in conrete and built around. There weren't cross beams to radiate the heat, so each beam would be burning individually. Heat spreads, but doesn't radiate in this situation.

This is a photo of the floors. Concrete on top, sure. But the floors were steel trusses connected with a metal deck. Plenty of heat conduction there.

These show multiple columns on each floor, helping support the weight of the core.

Same thing, only in German.

Essentially, there was more than enough steel in the structure to conduct heat. The core itself ran the span of the building, and the perimeter steel beams were connected to the beams below them and the floor with bolts and connections and all that good stuff. The floors were designed to carry their own weight AND the free weight of the people and office stuffs that they held.

If the fire caused them to fail, that would mean that the fire ate through the concrete, then ate through and melted steel...something that has never happened outside of the very controlled actions of a oxyacetylene torch (those fancy welding torches guys, whatever their name is) and other, highly controlled, highly optimized scenarios.

The heat didn't spread consistently, so different beams were bearing more load.

I'm telling you, the building style didn't lend it self to even radiation.

Even if this were true, the over-engineering of the building structure would have allowed the building to stand even if one floor failed. Which, according to the engineers who worked with these buildings, shouldn't have happened even WITH a jetliner attack.

Occam's razor. Go with what most of the people said. Odds are they had better views. Anyone who was around was going to testify that they saw it, even if it was a fleeting glimpse. People like to centralize themselves in a story.

So the survivors of the WTC who said they didn't feel much heat from the fires on the floors, I'm believing them. And if people can't feel the heat in the stairwell, there is no godly way that the fire melted or bent or snapped steel.

It was big enough to have been hit by the nose of a plane. That thing started to shred the instant it made impact.

Okay, but where are the sheds of plane? The entire plane wouldn't have gone up in a massive super-heated explosion. Or else the Pentagon that was left standing wouldn't have fared so well.

------------------

And in the half an hour Bush had in office to plan this, that's feasible. Maybe Cheney was planning and funding this mission on the off hand chance the nation would elect a candidate from the opposite party of an incredibly popular and accomplished President.

That's why the election of Bush in Florida was rigged, silly. The Republican masters (led by Cheney) rigged the election in Florida without Bush's knowledge. Then the highly partisan Supreme Court supported the outcome, and bam. You have yourself a president the public didn't elect and a president that will believe anything that his Vice-President lies to him.

..Conspiracy theories...they sure are fun, huh?
------------

There were 4500 aircraft in the air. They were looking to the west for flight 93, and it had turned to go east. Finding planes that aren't transmitting a signal in that situation was impossible.

Sure. But you still could have sent planes up to at least look. Saying "Meh, it's impossible" when an attack is going on on your very own soil is lazy at worst, incompetent at best. They should have been doing everything they could, including scrambling the jets to at least flyover New York and Washington to scout.

The Vice=President does not have clearance to initiate an action. In the absence of the President, it is the National Security Advisor, in this case, Secrretary Rice, but the President wasn't absent, he was inactive. Probably had something to do with uncertainty.

So the VP can issue a stand-down order, but not an action order? I understand the President or the NSA has to give the order, but how can the VP make a stand-down order?

Attacks like this aren't supposed to happen. Buildings like that aren't supposed to crumble. They did, and it's hard to determine why. Filling the void with these wild theories doesn't always hurt. We can usually use them to find the real answer.

I wouldn't say my theory is wild. Just incredibly creative, and based on facts of a scientific sort.

The beams were built, wrapped in concrete, then rebar and more conrete were wrapped around the concrete beams. They were not cirsscrossed by conductive beams.

Concrete is a conductor, no? Heat could have conducted through the concrete and into the steel beams still. The beams were interconnected at the floors and above and below. The heat penetrates the concrete, then moves along the structure.

Grasping at straws.

Oh please, I'm analyzing evidence and scientific fact. The only grasping at straws you could claim is the Cheney shit I'm throwing around. And that's mostly because it's at least half plausible.

My head hurts.

I spent an hour on this shit. God damn it, I still have to go redeem my Georgia/Arkansas ticket.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I'm building a catapult in an hour and a half. Hopefully I can get this and my Batman thread done...probably not though.

Trebuchet(sp?) , I hope.

Bush was easily manipulated, of that even Cheney has hinted at. Didn't he say a few months ago that during the last year or so in office Bush started to not listen as much to him? It was around the time that Cheney announced a "tell-all" memoir or some shit like that. That at least implies that Bush trusted Cheney, and would believe anything Cheney told him. Bush didn't have to know, Cheney just had to lie.

I know it's funny to call Bush an idiot and make fun of him, but he did a pretty good job as governor of Texas, without Cheney.

Morals are always absolute, or they aren't morals. You can't suspend morality just because. And no matter what the moral discussion is, that moral discussion started because the act can be considered cloudy at best. The only thing that separates a Utilitarian and a Kantian is that the utilitarian believes the ends justify the means, and the Kantian believes the only truly good ethical outcome comes from ethical actions.

Different situation will always put morals in conflict in different ways. There are very few situations with only one question of morals involved. But enough on the holes in Kant....

I wouldn't consider myself a Utilitarian either. More of a social contract pragmatist and moral non-absolutist.

Prove Al-Qaeda wasn't in on the attacks? Well...I can link Osama Bin Laden to the CIA as a patsy up TO the 9/11 attacks. What makes it impossible that Bin Laden wasn't ordered by the CIA to commit the attack, then used as a very handy scapegoat?

So, he put out another video yesterday at the request of the CIA? He hates us, he gave Al-Zawhiri funding and permission to get us.

The link goes back to the Russian war in Afghanistan, and claims that the CIA funded Osama Bin Laden against the Russians. Not only that, but Al Qaeda started as a joint CIA/Mujahadeen fighting force against the Russians. The CIA kept them around after the Russians pulled out...then all of a sudden 9/11 happens, Osama Bin Laden is a villain, and the Middle East hates the West.

Well, we do support Israel, which I don't think I need to prove they hate.

[youtube]0UGXVic15ho[/youtube]​

This is an interview from Good Morning America. It pretty much shows that the generic public doesn't accept Bin Laden...though, from what the government would have told us back then, shouldn't they be?

I believe everything the All Barack Channel tells me.

Actually, the general public on Pakistan may not accept him, but he is a hero in Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace, and Afghanistan.

Ah. Apologies.




Oh come on! You KNOW Tupac would be an awesome Secretary of the Interior.

Czar of Urban Affairs?

Just as it's hard to separate you from all the conservatives who would claim my treasonous because I actually don't hate the Obama Healthcare plan.



Don't be such a bitch. Push through, like a man would.

I really should be working right now.

------------

I still don't believe that is the case.



Eh. So one big plane hitting a floor of a building would cause it to collapse, when multiple planes that are only a bit smaller would allow it to stand? How does that make sense anywhere?



Kerosene jet fuel is one type of Jet Fuel, yes. And that is what is used commercially, is it not? And the calculations took into account just this type of jet fuel.

Let's say that the equations didn't take into account kerosene. Have you ever seen steel melt due to fire? Your barbeque grill, your steel pots, your pans, anything steel related? Or even warp due to the heat.

Now, that steel isn't near the grade used in the WTC, no? If that steel doesn't melt, what makes steel used to support a sky-scraper melt under fire?

Also, you failed to acknowledge my earlier assertion about the smooty fire. Even if kerosene wasn't taken into account, it's burning point while in an oxygen starved fire wouldn't possibly reach the heat levels to melt, warp, or buckle a steel beam.

Dueling experts. Dan Patrick of Sportscenter is in the Housebunny. Anna Faris is hot.

The sooty fire can be explained by burning paper, electronics, skin.....
----------------------

This is a photo of the floors. Concrete on top, sure. But the floors were steel trusses connected with a metal deck. Plenty of heat conduction there.

These show multiple columns on each floor, helping support the weight of the core.

Same thing, only in German.

Essentially, there was more than enough steel in the structure to conduct heat. The core itself ran the span of the building, and the perimeter steel beams were connected to the beams below them and the floor with bolts and connections and all that good stuff. The floors were designed to carry their own weight AND the free weight of the people and office stuffs that they held.

If the fire caused them to fail, that would mean that the fire ate through the concrete, then ate through and melted steel...something that has never happened outside of the very controlled actions of a oxyacetylene torch (those fancy welding torches guys, whatever their name is) and other, highly controlled, highly optimized scenarios.

OK, fine the steel can conduct heat. Simple conservation of energy would tell me that the further from the source, the less the heat. I don't think that this proves that the steel didn't expand at different rates, thereby providing different load bearing properties for the stability of the building. It doesn't need to eat through the concrete and steel, it just needs to force expansion.

Even if this were true, the over-engineering of the building structure would have allowed the building to stand even if one floor failed. Which, according to the engineers who worked with these buildings, shouldn't have happened even WITH a jetliner attack.

It isn't one floor falling. It's a case of forth floors not being able to remain stable on top of, for lack of a better term, a fucked up Jenga structure at that point. They started to fall, and the building, which had been weakened all the way down the structure because of jet fuel in elevator shafts, couldn't hold up.

So the survivors of the WTC who said they didn't feel much heat from the fires on the floors, I'm believing them. And if people can't feel the heat in the stairwell, there is no godly way that the fire melted or bent or snapped steel.

So the survivors, in a rush, and full of adenaline and endorphins, didn't notice much heat.

Okay, but where are the sheds of plane? The entire plane wouldn't have gone up in a massive super-heated explosion. Or else the Pentagon that was left standing wouldn't have fared so well.

There were pieces of the plane everywhere. Those that didn't burn away. Remember the independent investigator? Yeah, he saw them. Even Loose Change showed pictures of that plane on the lawn. They then proceeded to tell us that someone put them there with no one noticing. Remember Occam's Razor?

------------------

That's why the election of Bush in Florida was rigged, silly. The Republican masters (led by Cheney) rigged the election in Florida without Bush's knowledge. Then the highly partisan Supreme Court supported the outcome, and bam. You have yourself a president the public didn't elect and a president that will believe anything that his Vice-President lies to him.

..Conspiracy theories...they sure are fun, huh?

And they talked the court that was split 4-4 with a moderate at the time to move in favor of Bush? Clarence Thomas must've been in on the plot too.
------------

Sure. But you still could have sent planes up to at least look. Saying "Meh, it's impossible" when an attack is going on on your very own soil is lazy at worst, incompetent at best. They should have been doing everything they could, including scrambling the jets to at least flyover New York and Washington to scout.

4500 planes in the air, in a state of confusion, looking for the nearest landing stip, let's put more planes in the air right now. No one has a flight plan anymore, so there's no risk there.

So the VP can issue a stand-down order, but not an action order? I understand the President or the NSA has to give the order, but how can the VP make a stand-down order?

The VP can't issue any orders. Anyone who was listening to him was an idiot. He was either communicating the wishes of the President, or acting on his own, which should have sent him to jail.

I wouldn't say my theory is wild. Just incredibly creative, and based on facts of a scientific sort.

Creative is a word....definitely....a....ummmm......word.

Concrete is a conductor, no? Heat could have conducted through the concrete and into the steel beams still. The beams were interconnected at the floors and above and below. The heat penetrates the concrete, then moves along the structure.

Inconsistently, causing inconsistent expansion, causing inconsistent support.

Oh please, I'm analyzing evidence and scientific fact. The only grasping at straws you could claim is the Cheney shit I'm throwing around. And that's mostly because it's at least half plausible.

Maybe 31% plausibel...at best.

I spent an hour on this shit. God damn it, I still have to go redeem my Georgia/Arkansas ticket.

I wanna go.

 

[Razor]

Trebuchet(sp?) , I hope.

Yep. It's going to be awesome. I'm Project and Construction Manager, so I'm basically running my team. And my team isn't a bunch of jackasses, so here we go. One incredibly cool trebuchet, coming up.

I know it's funny to call Bush an idiot and make fun of him, but he did a pretty good job as governor of Texas, without Cheney.

And he didn't mass murder his own citizens, yes? Awesome. That still puts the blame on Cheney, from where I'm standing.

Different situation will always put morals in conflict in different ways. There are very few situations with only one question of morals involved. But enough on the holes in Kant....

Yeah, let's move on. This isn't philosophy class, and I don't feel like pointing out the holes in trying to measure 1000 lives over 1 life.

I wouldn't consider myself a Utilitarian either. More of a social contract pragmatist and moral non-absolutist.

I'm a moral absolutist, to a point. I'm no Quaker.

So, he put out another video yesterday at the request of the CIA? He hates us, he gave Al-Zawhiri funding and permission to get us.

Why not? We still don't know the inner workings of CIA to ANY extent, no matter what my lord and saviour Obama told us when he was running for President.

Well, we do support Israel, which I don't think I need to prove they hate.

When we're funding them, I don't think they mind that we're also putting nukes in the hands of Israel. Especially considering Israel isn't actually going to use the nukes in Lebanon. Iran, maybe.

I believe everything the All Barack Channel tells me.

Actually, the general public on Pakistan may not accept him, but he is a hero in Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace, and Afghanistan.

Well, when you build a man up as the international rebel against the American government, and people are more than a little pissed about America's involvement with Israel, they're going to worship the ground that man walks on.

..At any rate, just because they get money from us doesn't mean they absolutely know it's us giving it to them. It's not like it comes shipped in large United States Treasury boxes with the American Flag and pictures of Obama/Ben Bernanke plastered all over it.

Czar of Urban Affairs?

Just don't bring Notorious B.I.G. in as the Czar of Educational Reform, and you yourself an administration.

I really should be working right now.

I have fuck tons of studying to do. But this is just sooo much fun.
------------

Dueling experts. Dan Patrick of Sportscenter is in the Housebunny. Anna Faris is hot.

The sooty fire can be explained by burning paper, electronics, skin.....

It's still characteristic of a fire that isn't getting enough oxygen. Start a fire and place a large handful of pine needles on top of it. It's going to smoke just like the WTC did.
----------------------

OK, fine the steel can conduct heat. Simple conservation of energy would tell me that the further from the source, the less the heat. I don't think that this proves that the steel didn't expand at different rates, thereby providing different load bearing properties for the stability of the building. It doesn't need to eat through the concrete and steel, it just needs to force expansion.

The process of heat transfer also tells me that the heat would radiate through out the beam before passing on through another connector and into another beam. The beams closest to the fires may have been hotter than the beams 40 stories below, but the fire wasn't hot enough nor fast enough to superheat one set of beams to the point of critical failure. Especially with all the handy conductors of heat lying around.

It isn't one floor falling. It's a case of forth floors not being able to remain stable on top of, for lack of a better term, a fucked up Jenga structure at that point. They started to fall, and the building, which had been weakened all the way down the structure because of jet fuel in elevator shafts, couldn't hold up.

But the building was over engineered to the point of oblivion. The impacts DID sever the supporting columns for, let's say, 3 floors. (I don't remember how many floors were taken out by the jet liners, sorry.) However, the weight of the upper floors would have been redistributed. These supports were sooo strong, they should have held up to that weight. It looked like they were, too. How else do you explain the failure of the building nearly what, 100+ minutes after the initial collision? The fires weren't anywhere hot enough or raged long enough to cause such damage over 100 minutes.

So the survivors, in a rush, and full of adenaline and endorphins, didn't notice much heat.

If you rush past fire that is hot enough to warp steel, hundreds of degrees Celsius, you're going to feel that no matter the adrenaline or endorphins running through your body.

There were pieces of the plane everywhere. Those that didn't burn away. Remember the independent investigator? Yeah, he saw them. Even Loose Change showed pictures of that plane on the lawn. They then proceeded to tell us that someone put them there with no one noticing. Remember Occam's Razor?

Yeah, yeah.

How is the crash debris of a plane that is supposed to have impacted the Pentagon and been subject to a massive explosion? At least, the official record says that the plane was subject to a fiery explosion.
------------------

And they talked the court that was split 4-4 with a moderate at the time to move in favor of Bush? Clarence Thomas must've been in on the plot too.

Not at all. Thomas just needed to hate Al Gore, which is entirely plausible.
------------

4500 planes in the air, in a state of confusion, looking for the nearest landing stip, let's put more planes in the air right now. No one has a flight plan anymore, so there's no risk there.

NORAD planes are going to cause more danger? Fighter jets flying around in the sky and find a plane are suddenly going to cause collisions or something? They have radar, no? Jet Liners and other planes are massive fucking objects in the sky.

The VP can't issue any orders. Anyone who was listening to him was an idiot. He was either communicating the wishes of the President, or acting on his own, which should have sent him to jail.

I direct you to this:

Department of Defense Directive

4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)). Civil authorities shall be informed that verbal requests for support in an emergency must be followed by a written request. As soon as practical, the DoD Component or Command rendering assistance shall report the fact of the request, the nature of the response, and any other pertinent information through the chain of command to the DoD Executive Secretary, who shall notify the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any other appropriate officials. If the report does not include a copy of the civil authorities' written request, that request shall be forwarded to the DoD Executive Secretary as soon as it is available.

I direct you to page 4 of the directive, paragraph 4.7.1. It gives any DoD department that has been requested to offer emergency services to prevent any further lose of human life (and some other stuff) to immediately take action. No need for Bush to issue an order for NORAD to scramble jets, just a request from the civilian authorities in..say, New York, for help.

Creative is a word....definitely....a....ummmm......word.

As is "dog."

Inconsistently, causing inconsistent expansion, causing inconsistent support.

Consistently, in line with the process of heat transfer through an appropriate conductor.

Maybe 31% plausibel...at best.

So still plausible, no?

I wanna go.

This Saturday. It's going to be awesome. We have what, the top three wide-receiver recruits in the country? And they're definitely pulling their weight.

 

[Big J]

WOW, Thanks for taking the time to post such informative posts.

I only have 1 question, if there were explosives where were the wires hidden and why didn't anyone see them?


Since this is such a short post, I hope it isn't considered spam.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Big J, there were crews renovating the building for a few months before the attacks. According to truthers, because they were there, they must have done it. The simplest answer to why they were there is that they were renovating the building. A building that size requires constant upkeep. But no, they probably rigged it to blow, under the order of the President, when they started, Clinton.

 

[Big J]

Now if your gonna say clintoon did it I agree(haha). Hey mods, THAT'S A JOKE!!!!!!!!

Look what clinton did at waco, 91 innocent people killed for NO REASON. I think MAYBE there was a coverup in the Oklahoma city bombing, I'm NOT SAYING clintoon did it, but that MAYBE there was someone other than McVeigh and Nichols involved. Look how fast they executed Tim McVeigh, nobody gets executed that fast. It took atleast 10 years to execute bundy and that was in Florida.