9/11 was an inside job?

[tekkamanblade]

also to madace's occam razor problem. you are dramatically over stating the amount of work needed on the part of the government. all they needed to do was immediately suspend the investigations by both the cia and fbi preventing them from bringing in the hijackers before the attack, allow the hijackers clearance through a dozen security check points in several countries despite being on watch lists, perfectly place explosives in 3 crowded skyscrapers, schedule some drills to obfuscate norad, have the shoot down order authority taken out of the hands of the generals and given to dick cheney, issue the "talking point" style bulletins to the media, and then sit back and let REAL terrorists do the rest.

in fact, the cleanup was probably harder than the setup, as it usually is in this world.

[WeGotDeathStar]

TWA Flight 800 happened off the shores off of Long Island, where I live. Spoke to plenty of eyewitnesses that saw a boat in the Long Island Sound fire what looked to be a S.A.M. Missile at a object in the sky then speed off. Official conclusion was spark in fuel tank ignited vapors causing the plane destruction. False, any fuel injected car driven on the road today uses the same principle of a electric fuel pump in a fuel tank. How many cars you see exploding for no reason on the roads? Do the math it's impossible that the FAA's theory holds any water. The only way that could happen is if the tank was empty filled with vapors and the fires sparked. The planes tanks were full upon takeoff for a transatlantic flight so the center fuel tank theory is bull.

Flight 243, The FAA"S official report was proven wrong by a family of a victim on that flight who was an engineer and did his own investigation as to what happened.. The FAA's report was changed only after a public outcry. By the way this could have been prevented by a $2000 modification to the plane but was never implemented due to cost issues and profit loss of the airlines.


Was certain aspects of 911 a cover up? Based on the decisions of the U.S. Govt to hide things from it's people then I would have to say yes. A lot of things about 911 don't add up.

How many Americans heard of Osama Bin Laden before 911? The news blamed him 15 minutes into the tragedy. Hours later all of the suspected hijackers faces were on national TV, how did they figure that out so fast? Why did WTC Building 7 fall without any apparent outside damage? All looked like controlled demolitions to me based on videos I have seen regarding it.

But whatever, I am more concerned with what led up to 911 and the outcome it has had on the country that I was born, live and work in.

It was meant to be the spark we needed to destroy ourselves. Go look at history, all great empires destroyed themselves from the inside out.

Hopefully we will be different.

[MadAce]

also to madace's occam razor problem. you are dramatically over stating the amount of work needed on the part of the government. all they needed to do was immediately suspend the investigations by both the cia and fbi preventing them from bringing in the hijackers before the attack, allow the hijackers clearance through a dozen security check points in several countries despite being on watch lists, perfectly place explosives in 3 crowded skyscrapers, schedule some drills to obfuscate norad, have the shoot down order authority taken out of the hands of the generals and given to dick cheney, issue the "talking point" style bulletins to the media, and then sit back and let REAL terrorists do the rest.

in fact, the cleanup was probably harder than the setup, as it usually is in this world.

I've never said a conspiracy was never possible:

Have you found a rebuttal against my argument, Occam's Razor?

Occams Razor whilst a sensible and sound principle of logic is not a irrefutable argument by any stretch of the imagination!


moleman

That's absolutely true. But it's perfectly applicable to this conundrum. When comparing the amounts of variables between both scenario's it's clear that there is such a large difference in number of variables that the scenario involving a conspiracy by the US government or elements thereof would fall victim to chaos theory and thus become unworkable by merit of being totally unpredictable. (A closed system in which all variables are known can still behave unpredictably)

In short, when applying Occam's Razor to said issue we can clearly see that the scenario involving a "normal" terrorist attack is much, much simpler, thus much much more likely.

As part of the rebuttal I would like to say that if, if, the US government wanted to stage a major terrorist attack to use as a causa belli then they really shouldn't have bothered to do anything. An attack of this size was inevitable. The only way it could have been averted was by an efficiently run US intelligence community which, as has been admitted by everyone involved, did simply not exist.

So one might say that if this inefficient intelligence community was indeed the result of deliberate, premeditated action rather than common incompetence, then yes, the attack might have been the result of a conspiracy. Albeit one much simpler and much more effective than covertly rigging buildings and firing cruise missiles at the Pentagon.

However, I'm not actually completely dismissive of terrorist/enemy attacks being fabricated by the US government. They have done so in the past, most notably they fabricated a rationale in support of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I'm just heavily opposed to the crackpot ideas of remotely flying planes and launching cruise missiles. I'm also opposed to your crackpot version which is just as insane, and just as immensely complicated.

I'm certain it was good old incompetence. Something a lot of people find it hard to believe. There's this image of the US government of an omnipotent, omniscient super-entity. It's not. It screws up just as well.

It can't evacuate some people to save them from a hurricane. It can't balance a budget. It can't create a 21th century navy. It can't keep banks in check. It can't covertly rig buildings to explode. It can't keep some very determined terrorists from entering the US.

BTW, Occam's razor still applies.

I also have 1 friend who is serveing in afganistan right now, fighting the TALIBAN

He hates me for opposing the war but his excuse was that we are animals, human nature is suppose to fight for territory.

is he fighting the taliban or is he guarding the poppy fields like the troops geraldo rivera was embedded with?

its not some kind of mystical secret that 9/11 was an inside job, don't you know the members of the official commission have spoken out?

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/ ... ubt_of.htm

The first article is Max Cleland saying the Bush administration sabotaged the 9/11 commission to allow the administration the time to invade Iraq. Very plausible, right up their alley.

The second one explains how Max Cleland exposes how the Bush administration is trying to go after Iraq in stead of Al-Qaeda.

"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up." Coud mean a lot of thinks depending on the context. It could mean that the Saudi government was involved or that the Iraqi government wasn't. Or that the US intelligence community royally screwed up.

It would seem Max Cleland is convinced that Al-Qaeda and OBL were behind the attack.

The third article explains that staff members and some commissioners thought the government was hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings.

Same for the forth.

I don't see anyone suggesting 9/11 was an inside job.

TWA Flight 800 happened off the shores off of Long Island, where I live. Spoke to plenty of eyewitnesses that saw a boat in the Long Island Sound fire what looked to be a S.A.M. Missile at a object in the sky then speed off. Official conclusion was spark in fuel tank ignited vapors causing the plane destruction. False, any fuel injected car driven on the road today uses the same principle of a electric fuel pump in a fuel tank. How many cars you see exploding for no reason on the roads? Do the math it's impossible that the FAA's theory holds any water. The only way that could happen is if the tank was empty filled with vapors and the fires sparked. The planes tanks were full upon takeoff for a transatlantic flight so the center fuel tank theory is bull.

Prove it.

Flight 243, The FAA"S official report was proven wrong by a family of a victim on that flight who was an engineer and did his own investigation as to what happened.. The FAA's report was changed only after a public outcry. By the way this could have been prevented by a $2000 modification to the plane but was never implemented due to cost issues and profit loss of the airlines.

Sounds interesting. I'd like to read more about this.

Was certain aspects of 911 a cover up? Based on the decisions of the U.S. Govt to hide things from it's people then I would have to say yes. A lot of things about 911 don't add up.

Indeed. Doesn't mean it was an inside job.

How many Americans heard of Osama Bin Laden before 911?

Of those who are informed and read a newspaper sometimes? Quite a lot I take it.

The news blamed him 15 minutes into the tragedy. Hours later all of the suspected hijackers faces were on national TV, how did they figure that out so fast?

Was it 15 minutes?

Why did WTC Building 7 fall without any apparent outside damage?

Good that you used the word "apparent". BTW, why did they want to rig WTC 7 and demolish it?

All looked like controlled demolitions to me based on videos I have seen regarding it.

Are you an expert?

But whatever, I am more concerned with what led up to 911 and the outcome it has had on the country that I was born, live and work in.

Indeed you should be.

It was meant to be the spark we needed to destroy ourselves. Go look at history, all great empires destroyed themselves from the inside out.

Well, in rebuttal of your theory, the US isn't a great empire.

[WeGotDeathStar]

When you have been born, raised and work in the United States come talk to me Madace , until then all of your opinions of the U.S. are solely based on internet trash.

Other then you copying and pasting others opinions I have yet to see you come up with a self written, non-biased post about the U.S. yet

I don't live in Belgium nor do I care to comment on it's problems either.

Go back under the bridge you came from troll

[MegaMan]

I couldnt find the cut I was looking for.. this has an irritating sensationalist intro.. but I think the important bits are in there. You could just skip ahead to 3:45. It's long, but worth it. Not the usual "tower collapsing, pentagon, blah blah" kinda stuff.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9024486145#


Project for the New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
copy pasted from their website:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."

In other words, we think America should be running the world, and we intend to make it happen.

Their statement of Principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
some people you can see have put their names on it: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush

Their document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," from September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

In this document, details about overhauling America's role in the world are given, and strategies to begin to tighten military grip on the planet.

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.
"



I'm not trying to detail exactly what role Project for the New American Century played, rather that the will to initiate a Pearl Harbor event did exist, and by people who did/do actually have power.

Funny, Occam's Razor is the stance I argue from the other side with.

[MadAce]

Wow madace, nothing rational to combat my statement. You are indeed losing your touch.

Pointing out that two examples does not equal a trend is more of a point than your statement deserves.

When you have been born, raised and work in the United States come talk to me Madace , until then all of your opinions of the U.S. are solely based on internet trash.

Other then you copying and pasting others opinions I have yet to see you come up with a self written, non-biased post about the U.S. yet

I don't live in Belgium nor do I care to comment on it's problems either.

Go back under the bridge you came from troll

That's a non argument. You being a US resident could just as well mean you're biased and subjective and disqualify you from forming a truly impartial opinion on the subject. Luckily I have some sense of reality and do not invoke this argument. You should return me such courtesy.

Also, equating information begotten trough the Internet to "trash" is like saying all literature is crap because Glen Beck wrote a book. A bit like with books you will find any opinion conceivable represented on the Internet, not meaning they weren't thought of independently. A nice example of this the opinion that anyone who disagrees with you and easily debunks any and all of your arguments is a a troll, which is very popular among a certain population on the Internet. A less reason impaired group of people represented online will think very little of people employing ad hominem attacks. You see, every opinion is represented.

Project for the New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
copy pasted from their website:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle."

In other words, we think America should be running the world, and we intend to make it happen.

Their statement of Principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
some people you can see have put their names on it: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush

Their document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," from September 2000
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

In this document, details about overhauling America's role in the world are given, and strategies to begin to tighten military grip on the planet.

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.
"



I'm not trying to detail exactly what role Project for the New American Century played, rather that the will to initiate a Pearl Harbor event did exist, and by people who did/do actually have power.

Funny, Occam's Razor is the stance I argue from the other side with.

The New American Century is quite an interesting organization. As for now I think it's quite obvious they're a pretty pathetic group of people. Yes, powerful, but also very ineffective. The past ten years have seen a steady decline in US power on all fronts.


Now, I do understand that sentences are a funny thing. Understanding them is even harder. So I'll help to break it down for you.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

They're not in any way shape or form saying they're willing to initiate this Pearl Harbor type event. They're simply saying that change in the direction they want will be a gradual process, save from overwhelming incidents. Something any historian will agree with.

I'm sure they've had their gains from the 9/11 tragedy. Yet, they haven't succeeded in the least in initiating the supposed manifest destiny of the US.

9/11 was not an inside job, the terrorists who did this were Muslim extreamists who killed thousands of people in the name of there god, and all they did was get Bush to mindlessly attack Iraq and evoke terror on the innocent Muslims, and the terrorists that did the attack set a horrible example for their religion, many Americans (where I live) blindly believe all Muslims are terrorists and hate you for not following their beliefs, which is not true seeing as I had a few Muslim friends and they were not "bad" at all.

Why would Muslim Terrorists destroy their own people and cause a holy jihad to themselves.

If anything the terrorists wanted to provoke the Americans into their country to kill them off, distract them, and make Americans Hated. Same way what happened to the soviets not by provoking but making them bankrupted. I think now it backfired on the Muslims.

Now most Americans hate Muslims, which would cause a Jihad.

I would think there would be a new genocide against muslims or the other way around, causing both sides to attack each other.

Firstly, I'll quote my reply to your question for the third time.

The terrorists realized the consequences of their actions. They very much did. That's what terrorists do. They incite terror. And what nation more naive, more gullible and more easily manipulated than the USA? If there's anyone easily terrorized, it's the US. Perfect target.
Look what happened after 9/11. The US gets out the flamethrower to react against an attack that's much less bad than the proverbial pinprick. Invades Afghanistan, for crying out loud. A nation which has made foreign invaders cry for some time now. Defeated the Soviet military, who do not understand the concept of restraint. That's saying something.
The US goes paranoid and passes the Patriot Act, terrorizing its own populace.
The US invades Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with terrorism, on the contrary, CIA reports indicate that the Saddam regime was against Al-Qaeda.

Result:
The Taliban still control a very large area of Afghanistan. The opium trade has actually increased indicated by the decrease of the heroine price.
The Taliban have made large gains in Pakistan, forcing the Pakistani government even to back down in large areas of the country.
Iraq has become a haven for terrorists where there previously were none.
More Americans have died in the Iraq post-war period than in the entire 9/11 attacks.
By invading Iraq the US has lost its credibility in the eyes of the world, alienating traditional allies like France and Germany.
The Iraq invasion and the lies preceding them have cost Tony Blair his premiership and have made the special relationship between the US and the UK a whole lot less special.
Muslim extremists from all over the world have rallied to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Muslim extremist terrorists have used the invasions as causa belli for their attacks in Madrid and London.
Both wars have cost the US almost two TRILLION (that's two thousand billion) dollars. A budgetary noose.
The US military for Iraq, and NATO for Afghanistan, have been discredited in the eyes of the world for failure to pacify and stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

The hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims who died in the process are martyrs to the terrorists.
The terrorists had every reason to topple those towers and the results have been overwhelmingly in their favor.





Nothing has backfired for the Muslim extremists



BTW, there are over 1.2 billion Muslims, very fractured in every way, shape or form. There's no such thing is "the muslims". Nor does the US initiate a holy Jihad. I think you have some things confused.
Also, I'm also pretty pessimistic about US popular opinion (as I am about any popular opinion) but I would say that "most Americans hate muslims" is a bit of a massive, insane, completely unfunded and very, very, very insulting stretch.
Of course you could prove me wrong by linking me to a sociological study on the subject.

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

The towers did not fall at freefall speeds.
It's hard to determine how fast the towers fell due to the smoke and unclear seismic readings. Around 8.4 to about 15 seconds. To calculate free fall in a vacuum, towers were about 417 meters tall , 417 =0.5 gt^2, so g=9.8m/s^2 which is around 9.22 seconds. Falling in 8. 4 would be impossible as it would fall faster than gravity.

Large pieces of debris falling alongside the tower clearly show that they are falling faster than the rest of the building. This suggests we should be thinking of a collapse during longer than our 9.22 second freefall figure. Most certainly not less.
So freefall was not achieved.

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

The company Weidlinger Associates Inc. (WAI) was hired by the owners of the WTC to decide if the collapses were one or two insurable "events." If Tower 1 was toppled over by Tower 2, the insurance firm would pay for only one event. If the collapses were independent, two events had to be covered. WAI, in their detailed analysis with the title "World Trade Center - Structural Engineering Investigation," produced very detailed maps of the distribution of debris. Because the perimeter walls peeled off from the walls along the four sides of both buildings, there was a 4-leaf-clover pattern to the debris pileups, which was entirely natural. However, there was significant asymmetry. Where a tower leaned over a bit during the collapse, debris was pushed farther from the towers. Also, the debris footprint of Tower 1 is 20 to 25% larger than that for tower two, because one plane hit Tower 1 near the 96th floor, while Tower 2 was hit around the 80th floor. Tower 1's debris had farther to fall, and logically was spread out wider. Incidentally, the reason Tower 2 collapsed first is that the greater mass of the upper section above the plane impact floors put more load on the stressed structure, making it fail faster.




http://www.wai.com/project.aspx?id=1817 ... 00&cat=450

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

What does that even mean? Rapid compared to what? The WTC incident was sui generis. It can't be either rapid or slow compared to only itself.

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

Two massive buildings were on fire and collapsing. Of course people thought they heard explosions. But people, even firefighters or police men, aren't experts on explosions. Just like everyone else they have to rely on Hollywood to teach them how an explosions sounds. Hollywood isn't a very good teacher.

Then there's the biased editing and interpretation of what people say.

Louie Cacchioli could be a good example. His story appeared immediately after 9/11.

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm

HOWEVER,

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

Another example.


Jay Swithers:
"I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go. "
http://www.911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html

But in the full version...

"an ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... rs_Jay.txt

Yet another example:

Dominick Derubbio:

"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ... "

What he actually said:

"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other."
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

We're not done yet with examples:

Albert Turi:

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. "

But in reality...

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... Albert.txt

And we keep on going:

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon:

"... the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. "
http://www.911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html

What he actually said:

"I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... _Brian.txt

I could really keep going.

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

Okay, this is going to be a bit embarrassing and funny, for both of us:

Code: Select all

In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.

So, err, yea. There you have it. Could someone corroborate this?

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

So? I'm not sure this was the case and certainly not sure this is proof of anything. I browsed the link you provided, but I'm not into buying any of their DVD's.
Could you please explain in more detail? Thanks.

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Again, sorry. Seriously, I genuinely am.

Not only because of the technobabble, but also because I could get the formatting right and I'll have to link you directly.

CLICK RIGHT HERE, it's starts on the first page.

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

That's two points. Please more details. And some proof would be real handy too.

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

I have found no proof the steel frame was completely dismembered. Nor how ti proves the controlled demolition theory.

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

I'm getting weary of this BS to be honest.

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

Yes, I've actually hugging read all of that. FFS.

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

Where the rumor originated from:

A molecule found in analysis of the WTC dust strongly suggests “that high-tech sol-gel thermite arson used on the WTC buildings”, suggests Professor Steven Jones:

... sol-gels to hold the thermite might leave telltale residue, 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP)…
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/ ... i=b310405b :
“Pore size effects in the pyrolysis of 1,3-diphenylpropane confined in mesoporous silicas”
(Research by chemist Kevin Ryan)

• Analysis of the WTC dust showed:

“One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others":

• “1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said.”
• http://www.newsday.com/news/health/nyhs ... right-area
• http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xmlreport.di ... _chk=65088
• Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggest that high-tech sol-gel thermite arson used on the WTC buldings.
• We are further researching these matters…

FAQ: Questions and Answers
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/JonesA ... Center.pdf

However, the readings mentioned were taken of air samples.

"The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) resulted in an intense fire and the subsequent, complete collapse of the two main structures and adjacent buildings, as well as significant damage to many surrounding buildings within and around the WTC complex. This 16-acre area has become known as Ground Zero. In response to this disaster, the US EPA quickly positioned air monitors and samplers around Ground Zero to characterize the resulting air plumes. One such instrument was a High Capacity Integrated Organic Gas and Particle (HiC IOGAP) sampler with a 2.5 mm cyclone for particle discrimination to collect semi-volatile gases and particles for speciation of organic compounds."
http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xmlreport.di ... _chk=65088

Not explosives, but burning computers produced the molecule in question:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-h ... right-area

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

Examples:

The McCormick Place exhibition hall, which collapsed in 1967 only 30 minutes after a small fire was accidentally started.
Mumbai High North Oil Platform, which completely collapsed after burning for two hours following a shipping accident that ruptured oil lines.
The collapse of the Interstate 580 overpass in theMacArthur Maze near San Francisco. This overpass, supported only by steel beams, suffered no impact but collapsed due to the heat of an 8,600 gallon gasoline fire, burning in the open below, after nineteen minutes.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

"Slow" is relative. Physical deformations also. Put this statement into context.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance.

The collapse was asymmetrical as proven in rebuttal of point two.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey

Starts at page 21 of the PDF version. The rumors that the fires weren't jot enough were started by a single person. Thoroughly debunked in this paper.

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

If you can show me any situation similar to the WTC collapse then I'll take this argument seriously.





Now we'll take a look at my supposed "insults".

hose are your ideas and your stupidities. You are one of the people too stupid, literally too retarded to realize how retarded and stupid they really are.

There's a scientific name for your problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

I'm not insulting you. I'm highlighting an unfavorable aspect of your personality. Not only that, I point you to the name of the issue so that you might be able to correct it. I was trying to be courteous.

You are too stupid to understand how stupid you are. You literally truly are one of the most insulting human being I've ever had to misfortune of meeting. You spit in the face of thousands of years of human process and you rape evolution itself in the behind. It's sickening.

Being yet again confronted with the gravity of your issue I try to spur you to action. It's been scientifically proven that people with disabilities are regarded as "sickening" this being an unconscious reflex.

I'm not a genius. Not at all. All the while I'm "arguing" (not really that, as you have no arguments) with you I'm not really even consciously involved in the argument. I remember once having an argument with a 6 year old diagnosed with Down Syndrome about why you shouldn't eat your own feces. I honestly had to use my mind. Seriously, he had some compelling arguments. His feces weren't all that bad tasting either.

What's wrong with this statement? It's hardly about you at all. I'm just saying I'm not consciously involved while arguing with you. How is that so bad?
Then I go and tell a funny anecdote from my personal life, in an effort to lighten the mood. Wasted effort apparently, but with the best intentions nonetheless.

If there's anyone the antithesis of any semblance of critical reasoning then it's you. Never have you shown even a shred of critical thought. It's horrifying to think that you'll ever get to have a job, as all jobs have the potential to hurt people.

Have you ever shown a shred of critical thought? Isn't the lack of this skill dangerous in a work environment?

Why would you fault someone for telling the truth? Relating your issue with future jobs was with your safety at heart.

As for me not playing the game... I stick around for people like you. To keep my confidence in humanity as low as possible. But thanks to you I've also lost my confidence in mammals, vertebrates, evolution, life and the entire universe. Thanks for that.

I do apologize for this statement. It's utter generalizations and entirely based on fallacies. It's not because you exhibit certain failing that these should be extrapolated to mammals, vertebrates, evolution, life and the entire universe.

I sincerely hope mammals, vertebrates, evolution, life and the entire universe will be able to forgive me.

DOn't you want to know my ultimate rebuttal for your BS?

I'm not insulting you, I'm analyzing your arguments. Which were found to be BS, by me.

Why have an argument when I'm not allowed to do that?

Minor note: As soon as you use "lol" you're frankly the most sadly retarded moron the world has ever seen. It doesn't make you seem laid back, witty or confident. It just makes you seem like a total, complete and utter fµcking idiot, who, by some fault of medical science, has been lobotomized 42 times.

Unless you said "lol" I wasn't referring to you. Were you using "lol"?
I sure hope you weren't.

Your lack of punctuation, spelling or grammar totally destroys any kid of credibility you had.

Again not an insult. I was simply trying to be helpful by pointing out that lack of punctuation, spelling or grammar would destroy your credibility. Was I wrong in this somehow?

As far as I'm concerned the only prupose you could possibly have in this universe is to serve as a contraception incentive for anyone who even contemplates coitus.

Listen, without context this might sound bad.

But come on... Don't you realize I'm very fond of you? It's a bit embarrassing, but I kinda really like you. Or so I think I do. I'm a bit confused.

You know, you're one of the few people ever of whom I've said they have a purpose in life.

So in effect I've given you the greatest compliment I could ever think of. And this is how you thank me? By completely misinterpreting my intentions? I'm genuinely saddened.

I open my heart to you. Okay if you don't like that. But you don't have to stomp on my feelings. Seriously, have some empathy.



In conclusion: I've never actually insulted you. It's just your biased interpretation of your words which lead me to believe that you would accuse me of being malevolent no matter what I say. I'm genuinely shocked and dismayed at how ugly you've made a simply and honest discussion. I can take this kind of abuse (I think) but you might consider remembering there are others out there that are less strong than I am.

And this is not personal attacking me? I already sent toonces this, he will be the final judge.

You're supposed to discuss your grievances with the moderator first. Which is Major. If he gets into trouble because you went over your head I might be slightly cross with you.

I have about 10 books of tom clancy . Just quit the forums dude instead of trying to fulfill your selfish needs of empowerment.

Why err... I mean, I'm confused... How is it that you regard reading Tom Clancy, the most pathetic, childish retard in all of literary history as a badge of honor? It's not, I repeat, it's NOT something to be proud of.

[-PLAGUE-]

Eh, I dont wont to quote that and spam people madace. But imma just say holy BBQ.

[MadAce]

Eh, I dont wont to quote that and spam people madace. But imma just say holy BBQ.

Considering all the dozens (hhundreds) of online discussions I've had in the past I could've written books by now. Literally. I should have. At least writers get paid.

[MadAce]

Listen, Cloud1... I'm going to tell you something everyone understands by now, save for you of course.

You're a horrible debater, and you would understand an overwhelming argument if it bit you in the donkey.

What you just did is quote, ad verbatim, without even reading it, the same crap you quoted before. Therefore it has been thoroughly disproved. More so because it actually hasn't been proved at all. You (well, since you're just blindly quoting other people, it's someone else) keep claiming this, without actually proving it.

I'm tired of you not reading your own "arguments" and then leaving the burden on me to read them, dissect then and then show you how to construct a proper argument.

[WeGotDeathStar]

If it was done by the government why would they destroy such a famous monument like the WTC, the WTC was a vital part of the New York economy I think, so it makes no sense to destroy such a building.

The goverment benefits from a cruddy economy by having it's people on handouts from govt.

It's all about control and the sheeple follow blindly.

[General_Neox]

9/11 was orchestrated by the Scottish

[Manganator]

Occam's Razor, I find, to be a rather unreliable defense.

For example, you can see Occam's Razor arguments on both sides of many arguments including creationism... proving that, based upon how conditions are labelled and how many are recognized, one side or another can be seen as having more or less complexity.

But... for me to nitpick Occam's in this case really not necessary, because you've been using it more to confuse people who you know won't understand it rather than using it as an actual defense.

Essential to creating a compelling possible-conspiracy claim is narrowing down the events to the most streamlined of conspiracies, involving the least number of government insiders possible. However... for the classic 9/11 conspiracy, you'd need, at the minimum.

-Dick Cheney
-Donald Rumsfeld
-A mid-ranking member of the CIA (minimum)
-1 trustworthy Black ops team (6 members minimum)

In arguing for the case of conspiracy, I would push hardest on these subjects.

-Eyewitness testimony of explosions within the towers, including deadly explosions in the lobbies and basements which claimed lives
-Seismic evidence
-Molten metal
-WTC7 and lack of precedent for similar collapse
-The panel of Chemists in Denmark that found evidence of Thermite in the debris from WTC7
-Rejection that WTC security would be able to prevent device placement from a black ops team. Citation of government studies in which numerous fake devices were smuggled into government buildings as oversight test.
-To anyone who doubts that the government would lie to them/violate the public trust, point to Iran-Contra/sinking of the Maine/Gulf of Tonkin
-Re-affirmation that the official story is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory"
-NORAD standown. Testimony from Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
-Explaining horizontal ejections of massive steel beams from gravity-driven collapse?
-Project for the New American century "Catalyst" "New Pearl Harbor"
-Collapse does not follow path of least resistance?
-Steel and concrete reduced to dust?
-Collapse of a steel frame building at free fall speed?

At the end... combine that

[tekkamanblade]

alot of people don't blindly believe the internet, thats good. dont. at the same time, don't blindly believe the government, the media, or me.

so hmm.

who actually WOULD know if it was an inside job or not?
maybe the guys that did the official investigation? guys like Commission Chairman Kean and Commission Vice-Chairman Hamilton?

Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission is the book they wrote. in it they claim the 9/11 commission was intentionally set up to fail, and was sabotaged in a variety of hilarious ways. if the heads of the 9/11 commission think the official story is bs, doesn't that make all you deniers complete idiots?

uh oh, better close your eyes and wish hard for it to all just go away so you can get back to jerking it to photoshopped seven of nine nudes.

[MadAce]

alot of people don't blindly believe the internet, thats good. dont. at the same time, don't blindly believe the government, the media, or me.

so hmm.

who actually WOULD know if it was an inside job or not?
maybe the guys that did the official investigation? guys like Commission Chairman Kean and Commission Vice-Chairman Hamilton?

Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission is the book they wrote. in it they claim the 9/11 commission was intentionally set up to fail, and was sabotaged in a variety of hilarious ways. if the heads of the 9/11 commission think the official story is bs, doesn't that make all you deniers complete idiots?

uh oh, better close your eyes and wish hard for it to all just go away so you can get back to jerking it to photoshopped seven of nine nudes.

Appeal to authority?

Besides, aren't you somehow assuming that just because the commission was intentionally set-up to fail and sabotaged that the 9/11 truther rhetoric is therefore true. You're diminishing a whole set of possibilities to only two options.


Also, what if I believed you, how would that change anything?

[tekkamanblade]

there are two options here, believe the official story, or not. choosing not to believe it doesn't automatically mean everything alex jones and those worse than him say is true, but it DOES open a big can of worms that most people are terrified of. to most of us true "truthers", 9/11 truth was never about pretending to have all the answers, it was about admitting that we DON'T, and probably never will. people that think they know exactly what happened are wrong, on BOTH sides of it. we can both have good theories, with good sources, and good science, but it will always be mere speculation.

so WHY don't we have all the answers? well, according to the commission itself, at least a part of it is because they weren't even allowed to ask.

at the very very least, the government has lied to your face from day one, and continues to. hopefully you are right about the likelihood of stupidity being higher than that of intentional malice. if so, then we do nothing, and do not stress over it, as there is nothing out of the ordinary taking place.

but if i am right, and there is a highly organized and highly intelligent group of people pursuing "greater good" (read as evil) then we are hugged no matter what actions we take. but still, there would be nothing to worry about and nothing out of the ordinary taking place there either. smart evil people routinely team up to carry out secret plans, that's the nature of man.

[MadAce]

there are two options here, believe the official story, or not. choosing not to believe it doesn't automatically mean everything alex jones and those worse than him say is true, but it DOES open a big can of worms that most people are terrified of. to most of us true "truthers", 9/11 truth was never about pretending to have all the answers, it was about admitting that we DON'T, and probably never will. people that think they know exactly what happened are wrong, on BOTH sides of it. we can both have good theories, with good sources, and good science, but it will always be mere speculation.

so WHY don't we have all the answers? well, according to the commission itself, at least a part of it is because they weren't even allowed to ask.

at the very very least, the government has lied to your face from day one, and continues to. hopefully you are right about the likelihood of stupidity being higher than that of intentional malice. if so, then we do nothing, and do not stress over it, as there is nothing out of the ordinary taking place.

but if i am right, and there is a highly organized and highly intelligent group of people pursuing "greater good" (read as evil) then we are hugged no matter what actions we take. but still, there would be nothing to worry about and nothing out of the ordinary taking place there either. smart evil people routinely team up to carry out secret plans, that's the nature of man.

There are millions of options beside the official story. Many of them being that the people who created the official story don't have all the facts. Typically people create what's called a false dichotomy concerning this subject. Please look that one up.

Frankly I think that the Alex Jones rant and such and the typical 9/11 truther BS is indeed very scary. People who are able to execute something so very complex in such a secret and intricate way while at the same time managing to create so much doubt are such a confusing combination of fail and perfection that they're bound to be super-human in both fields, probably hinting at them being aliens from Jupiter's south-pole.

It's one thing to say that we'll never know all the answers, it's quite another thing to suggest that both ends of the spectrum are equally valid. One end of the spectrum is quite logical, the other end of the spectrum is complete I love puppies.


Also, for your consideration, look up "platitude", example:

smart evil people routinely team up to carry out secret plans, that's the nature of man.

[tekkamanblade]

its not a platitude its an idiom.

[MadAce]

its not a platitude its an idiom.

And that's a straw man? Anyways. Could be both at the same time.

I wonder how long it'll take us to get to fallacy's fallacy.

[tekkamanblade]

its not a platitude, its an idiom, lol.

Frankly I think that the Alex Jones rant and such and the typical 9/11 truther BS is indeed very scary. People who are able to execute something so very complex in such a secret and intricate way while at the same time managing to create so much doubt are such a confusing combination of fail and perfection that they're bound to be super-human in both fields, probably hinting at them being aliens from Jupiter's south-pole.

if it were done well and done secret, alex jones wouldn't have anything to fear monger with, and certainly wouldn't have a never ending flow of leading experts on his show lending him precious chunks of credibility. his version of it, whether right or wrong, really ISN'T that complicated either. control freaks want control, they team up, they form a plan over decades, and their offspring carry it out. nobility has done this throughout history all over the world, its not new or beyond mortal comprehension as you suggest.

and btw its not jupiter's south pole from which they hail, according to david icke; its inter-dimensional shape shifting lizard men.

fallacy of fallacy? you mean just because david icke uses a ludicrous argument to support his reptillian theory, doesn't mean it isn't true? lol.

[MadAce]

its not a platitude, its an idiom, lol.

Frankly I think that the Alex Jones rant and such and the typical 9/11 truther BS is indeed very scary. People who are able to execute something so very complex in such a secret and intricate way while at the same time managing to create so much doubt are such a confusing combination of fail and perfection that they're bound to be super-human in both fields, probably hinting at them being aliens from Jupiter's south-pole.

if it were done well and done secret, alex jones wouldn't have anything to fear monger with, and certainly wouldn't have a never ending flow of leading experts on his show lending him precious chunks of credibility. his version of it, whether right or wrong, really ISN'T that complicated either. control freaks want control, they team up, they form a plan over decades, and their offspring carry it out. nobility has done this throughout history all over the world, its not new or beyond mortal comprehension as you suggest.

Has nobility seriously done this? When exactly have they done this? I've always found that they're too busy with infighting and inbreeding and, you know, the troubles of the day, to both with "taking over the world over a 50 year time-span".

People who are rich and "powerful" aren't any different from you. They're not super-people. Stop dehumanizing them.

[tekkamanblade]

in my understanding of history, the primary means of "teaming up" among nobles in search of greater power was through arranged marriages to consolidate various regions into larger and larger empires. i will stop dehumanizing them when they stop paying for thousands of propaganda channels that exist solely to dehumanize us, rofl.

i actually agree that "rich" people are in the same boat as us. everyone that believes their worthless paper has value just because someone scribble some silly portraits and numbers on it is in the same little life raft while those with POWER have sole authority to do the scribbling. to people with my definition of power, wealth is meaningless, and i would imagine they have very different goals in life than those of us who have to scramble for tommorow's supper.

[MadAce]

in my understanding of history, the primary means of "teaming up" among nobles in search of greater power was through arranged marriages to consolidate various regions into larger and larger empires. i will stop dehumanizing them when they stop paying for thousands of propaganda channels that exist solely to dehumanize us, rofl.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

i actually agree that "rich" people are in the same boat as us. everyone that believes their worthless paper has value just because someone scribble some silly portraits and numbers on it is in the same little life raft while those with POWER have sole authority to do the scribbling. to people with my definition of power, wealth is meaningless, and i would imagine they have very different goals in life than those of us who have to scramble for tommorow's supper.

Sure, they're probably just wasting time just as we are, just not with menial work.

[tekkamanblade]

im trolling some other threads to old buddy old pal, go contradict me there too while i waste time with menial work.

[MadAce]

im trolling some other threads to old buddy old pal, go contradict me there too while i waste time with menial work.

No thanks. You're not as interesting as you think you are.

[tekkamanblade]

touche

however, you are not the sole arbiter of interesting in the universe, as you seem to think you are.

[MadAce]

touche

however, you are not the sole arbiter of interesting in the universe, as you seem to think you are.

I do not think I am, nor have I given any indication that I do. You're under the mistaken assumption that it would take a lot of knowledge about "interesting" to realize that you are not interesting, something along the levels of "sole arbiter". This isn't the case.