The truth about 911

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

Hardly. Again I whip out the handy 100,000 tons and the dumbell example.

Take dumbell and place pencil underneath it. Observe.

Then drop dumbell from 3 feet above pencil lying on ground. Observe.

This is a very misleading example, a more accurate one would be take a pencil, snap off the top third, hold the top third a couple of millimeters above the bottom two thirds and drop it. Observe.

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

Clue,

I truly appreciate the debate and I hold high regard for your skepticism. I wish the skepticism were directed at the official story as much, but never the less it's a respectable trait.

It seems like this debate could go on for some time if we allow it which is fine by me. However, in the mean time if you have the opportunity perhaps you can look at rajiv's post above and read some of the oppinions of people better educated than I.

Watch a video of first responder eyewitness accounts which describe huge explosions prior to the building collapses. There are 118 accounts of people hearing explosions. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom". Listen to Marlene Cruz's testimony about how she was injured by explosions in the basement which occured several minutes before the collapse.

Listen to firefighter radio transmissions stating that most of the fires we're already out when the towers collapsed.

Listen to the Underwriters Laboratories Engineers who signed on the bottom line that those buildings could withstand a commercial jet impact as it was designed to. UL Engineers who say there is no possible way that jet fuel caused this.

Watch a video of George Bush caught lying saying that he saw the first plane hit the tower on television before he entered the classroom to read to some children, before the Secret Service agent came in and imformed him of the second tower being hit. This is impossible considering that there was no footage of this aired on television until the next day.

Watch the video of Larry Silverstien saying they decided to controlled demoliton building 7, which is virtually impossible to pull off without prior planning.

Look into the verifiable fact that Mervin Bush had the contract for security on those buildings. The contract which ended on 9-11-01 coincidentally enough.

The 911 Comission report barred 503 first responder testimonies. Just threw them out. And doesn't even mention building 7!

Lastly consider that the people of Germany as a whole were completely unable to accept that their own government was responsible for burning down the Reichstag Parliament Building until of course top Nazi officials admitted to it at the Nuremburg Trials. They burned it down, blamed it on communist terrorists, passed an emergency decree much like the Patriot Act, propagandized about fatherland security, began spying on their own citizens, and set up institutions much like the Department of Homeland Security. The rest is history.

[c1ue]

Re: The truth about 911

This is a very misleading example, a more accurate one would be take a pencil, snap off the top third, hold the top third a couple of millimeters above the bottom two thirds and drop it. Observe.

Actually, it is a very good example. The World Trade Center towers were 330 feet by 420 feet in cross section.

The support rods as I've pointed out previously are composed of 14 in square hollow columns. Even including the outer shell of rods, we're talking about 270+ square feet of support column vs. 138,600 square feet of space per floor, or 500 to 1 area ratio. And while concrete doesn't weigh as much as steel, there were 30+ floors in the section above the crash zones which also included the structural steel in those floor.

Incidentally 1/5th of the WTC weight was steel.

The pencil example would apply to a normal brick building where the weight of the structure is supported by its full components, but in the case of a skyscraper the supports are only from the much smaller volume frame.

For that matter you are also not taking into account the fundamental densities of the materials vs. the forces in question. While ants can lift hundreds of times their own weight, a human being lifting twice his own weight is very exceptional. But even ants with a liftable weight will get crushed by same said object if the object gains enough kinetic energy.

I truly appreciate the debate and I hold high regard for your skepticism. I wish the skepticism were directed at the official story as much, but never the less it's a respectable trait.

It seems like this debate could go on for some time if we allow it which is fine by me. However, in the mean time if you have the opportunity perhaps you can look at rajiv's post above and read some of the oppinions of people better educated than I.

Watch a video of first responder eyewitness accounts which describe huge explosions prior to the building collapses. There are 118 accounts of people hearing explosions. "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom". Listen to Marlene Cruz's testimony about how she was injured by explosions in the basement which occured several minutes before the collapse.

My view on conspiracies is pretty simple: over time the truth will come out.

Certainly it is possible some deep dastardly plot was concocted to solidify Bush's political position, or by some hurting financial company to cover its post tech bubble losses, or a very hi tech insurance scam.

But each additional person required to undertake the effort makes it exponentially harder to cover up.

I don't think 9/11 is something 3 guys can pull off, and I have a hard time believing it is possible to find hundreds or thousands of people willing to murder a bunch of innocents without a single one breaking down psychologically and blowing the whistle.

Sure, you can put security on the operatives of the plan. Then who watches the watchers?

A Reichstag fire in comparison is a small and easy operation.

As for the witnesses - again no one has experience with this scale of disaster. The 'explosions' might have been individual columns catastrophically failing. They might have been overheated supercomputer systems blowing up. They could have been pockets of water heated to explosive pressures by the jet fuel. Then there is the reliability of 'eyewitnesses' in general - which is piss poor.

For the UL - I simply don't see how they can say with a certainty that there's no way a commercial jet going hundreds of miles an hour and loaded with 70000 liters of jet fuel could not possibly have brought down the WTC. There is no data for cataclysms of that magnitude to compare with.

There's an easy way to disprove it though - just crash another old jet filled with fuel into a skyscraper scheduled for demolition. Just a couple of million bucks.

Regarding Bush - do you really think he's smart enough to not blow the story? Would anyone entrust him to hold this deep dark secret? Or is he going into every interview with the first line in his script saying: Don't talk about 9/11?

Finally as for the demolition - destroying a skyscraper is much easier than a normal structure. The skyscraper is 90% air and the support columns are clearly marked in the building plan. All you need is the time to calculate the amount of explosives needed, build the charges, and place them. I'd be astonished if the military as well as the demo contractors don't have handy tables for this type of thing: Explosive X shape and Y size for Z steel thickness and composition.

But of course like the movie 'Signs', there might really be aliens.

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

Watch the video all the way through!

From Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel

[Supercilious]

Re: The truth about 911

The skeptical view:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

And the official NIST report:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_videos.html


No controlled demolition and no UFO's ....

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

I don't think you even saw the videos (the total viewing time is about 4 hours) -- Because none of the inconsistencies brought out there have been answered by any of your links.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

just using my imagination here. If the weight of the building is 1/5 steel then by analogy you could imagine one hollow steel support 70 stories tall, then imagine 5 30 story hollow supports bolted together side by side hovering two stories directly above the 70 story support. Then let the 30 story supports fall. What i can't imagine is the 70 story support liquifying into droplets and offering absolutely no resistance when its hit by the 30 story supports.

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

Actually, it is a very good example. The World Trade Center towers were 330 feet by 420 feet in cross section.

It's a bad example, stop comparing apples to oranges. Don't drop a barbell on a pencil or a bug, drop a barbell on a barbell.

My view on conspiracies is pretty simple: over time the truth will come out.

There's one thing that we do agree on.

But each additional person required to undertake the effort makes it exponentially harder to cover up.

You are absolutely right C1ue! The cover up did fail, an for those who are looking objectively it's clear.
Hence several of the people involved being caught in their lies as forementioned above. Hence the thousands of people who have spoken out and joined truth movements as forementioned above. Hence the discrepencies and omissions in the official report so big you could fly a 757 through as forementioned above. Because we're disgusted that more money went into investigating Clintons BJ fiasco than did the investigation into the largest act of terror this country has ever seen.

For the UL - I simply don't see how they can say with a certainty that there's no way a commercial jet going hundreds of miles an hour and loaded with 70000 liters of jet fuel could not possibly have brought down the WTC. There is no data for cataclysms of that magnitude to compare with.

They can say with certainty because of principles discovered 300 years ago by a guy named Isaac Newton which show us that the motion of objects is governed by natural laws which don't change whether a conspiracy is involved or not.

Regarding Bush - do you really think he's smart enough to not blow the story? Would anyone entrust him to hold this deep dark secret? Or is he going into every interview with the first line in his script saying: Don't talk about 9/11?

I can tell you with certainty that Bush is holding many deep dark secrets. He's a skull and bones member for goodness sake. Do you know how the Bush family projected itself into this elite status to begin with?

I don't know how the movie signs relates but statistically speaking (more science), yes there probably are aliens and it seems somewhat naive to me considering the mind boggling size of the universe to think earth is the only planet with life on it. It doesn't mean I'm making tinfoil hats and brewing arsenic kool-aid for the next comet sighting. No offense to bart on the tinfoil hat thing, it suits you well.

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

What i can't imagine is the 70 story support liquifying into droplets and offering absolutely no resistance when its hit by the 30 story supports.

You can't imagine it because this type of scientifically impossible nonsense wouldn't even happen in a John Woo film.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

this video sums up a lot of what i've seen on WTC7. Maybe a lot of info on Failure To Deliver and Naked short selling also got lost with this building along with info on enron and worldcom.

Also danny Jowenko, a 27 year demolition expert looking pretty stunned as the journalist tells himn of the conditions needed to work in when apparently the decision to pull the building was made.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

Hey c1ue, here's a video just for you mate. It's only 3 minutes.

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

Three articles that are an important read

Analysis of the Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials

[metalman]

Re: The truth about 911

Hey c1ue, here's a video just for you mate. It's only 3 minutes.

can't believe that video has 13000 views. this comment captures the essence of the presentation... "This is possibly the most stupid person in the entire world."

well, no. these are the most stupid people in the entire world (he added hoping to hijack this silly 9/11 conspiracy theory thread and turn it into a stupid people videos thread)

this vid certainly earned 575k views...

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

Also The AE911Truth PowerPoint multimedia slide presentation

Also a video presentation by Richard Gage Below the slide presentation

[Supercilious]

Re: The truth about 911

I don't think you even saw the videos (the total viewing time is about 4 hours) -- Because none of the inconsistencies brought out there have been answered by any of your links.

Ok there are the reports:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

Can you point me to some serious scientific analysis made by the truthers?