What are the chances of this being real?

[Xtremehkr]

http://www.underreported.com/images/storyphotos/2005/01/WTCWoman.jpg

Link (http://www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1419&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

It's all over the blogs. But here's the hyperlink to a government website, just as a courtesy to UnderReported.com readers. Despite the "raging fires" that brought down the towers, a woman is casually (as in, not engulfed in flames) standing in the WTC hole made by the airplane. As pointed out (with no hyperlink) byglobalresearch.ca (http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523), this photo comes from page 18 of the FEMA report World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf) , (the report attributes the photo to Roberto Rabanne)

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/survivor-male.jpg

http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/survivors.jpg

Would have been cool for a couple of minutes anyway.

[blackfox]

look, maybe I 'm too drunk from extended happy hour, but what are you getting at exactly with this thread?

[Xtremehkr]

I was just fascinated by the picture, but it has fueled a lot of speculation about the conclusion that flames from the aviation fuel was the cause of the buildings coming down. How bad could the fires have been if people are wandering around after the impact and ensuing inferno? Unless the photo is a fake though.

[jadam]

They could have been dead?

[Xtremehkr]

No, she's in different poses in the last two photos.

[sorryiwasdreami]

The reason the buildings fell, and fell so cleanly, was that there were explosives involved.

[solvs]

The reason the buildings fell, and fell so cleanly, was that there were explosives involved.
You know, I'm no conspiracy nut, but I saw a BBC documentary on the WTC and it did bring up a lot of questions. Both towers were built to withstand being hit by airplanes, and the fuzzy math (well, physics actually) doesn't add up. They said that there wasn't enough heat to cause the buildings to crumble the way they did, especially not as fast as they did. I'd actually like to think they are wrong, because I can't even imagine the alternative.

But how did all of those people jump out of a building out of an area that was supposed to be engulfed in flames? I does make you wonder if you really understand how things like that work. I just kinda hope there's some other explanation.

[Blue Velvet]

The reason the buildings fell, and fell so cleanly, was that there were explosives involved.

Says who?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...

[Lacero]

Poor application of fireproofing materials between the tresses and the stairwells were the cause for the collapse of the 2 towers. Nothing could be done to prevent a collapse of a building, given a jumbo jet smashing into the side at 600mph.

[jadam]

Says who?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...

Look how cleanly the buildings fell... almost straight down, like a preplanned building demolition.

I know for a fact that that one of the smaller buildings, I forget which one it was, had been demolished by the NYPD to prevent it from toppling over. Apparently they had explosives planted in the building just in case it would collapse so that they could have minimal damage to surrounding buildings.

[Blue Velvet]

Look how cleanly the buildings fell... almost straight down, like a preplanned building demolition.

I know for a fact that that one of the smaller buildings, I forget which one it was, had been demolished by the NYPD to prevent it from toppling over. Apparently they had explosives planted in the building just in case it would collapse so that they could have minimal damage to surrounding buildings.

That is not evidence. Show me your source and references...

And then saying you know for a fact, then going on to say 'I forget which one...'

:rolleyes:

[jadam]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

[Juventuz]

You know, I'm no conspiracy nut, but I saw a BBC documentary on the WTC and it did bring up a lot of questions. Both towers were built to withstand being hit by airplanes, and the fuzzy math (well, physics actually) doesn't add up. They said that there wasn't enough heat to cause the buildings to crumble the way they did, especially not as fast as they did. I'd actually like to think they are wrong, because I can't even imagine the alternative.

Yes, the twin towers were built to withstand a plan hitting them, smaller planes. The terrorists that hijacked the planes did so with the intention of them being large enough to do the damage they wanted, especially with all the fuel they had in them. A lot of analysts said that had the plane been loaded with less fuel there was a chance the towers could have survived. Instead they were near fuel capacity, they were flying molotov cocktails.

But how did all of those people jump out of a building out of an area that was supposed to be engulfed in flames? I does make you wonder if you really understand how things like that work. I just kinda hope there's some other explanation.

All the people that I've seen pictures of or video of that jumped were either from areas above the impact or below the impact.

[pseudobrit]

PBS did a very thorough show on this. It showed that the building was strong enough to take the impact from the planes, and the insulation was engineered to block the heat.

The design flaw was that the fireproofing material was not designed to withstand the blast from the impact. The insulation was blown off and the steel cooked. Engineers predicted how the building would react while undergoing the heat and eventual failure of the outer supports, and how the floors would successively collapse. Upon closer review of the video, you could see the tower collapsing exactly as they'd hypothesised.

I hate these imprecise conspiracy theories that have no accusation. They're so lazy in nature I'm immediately disgusted by them. You're asking to have it proven to you that the government didn't purposely explode the WTC or something?

Why?

There's vague -- if any -- references to motive and facts.

Put another way: what's your friggin' point?

(and, did you ever think that during the course of the whole ordeal, there may have been moments smoke and flames were only pouring out of one side of one of the towers?)

[jadam]

Well they did demolish building 7 on purpose, but that was for safety reasons.

And yeah, the people who actually buy in to these conspiracy theories are nuts.

[Thomas Veil]

PBS did a very thorough show on this. It showed that the building was strong enough to take the impact from the planes, and the insulation was engineered to block the heat.

The design flaw was that the fireproofing material was not designed to withstand the blast from the impact. The insulation was blown off and the steel cooked. Engineers predicted how the building would react while undergoing the heat and eventual failure of the outer supports, and how the floors would successively collapse. Upon closer review of the video, you could see the tower collapsing exactly as they'd hypothesised.I saw the same documentary, with interviews with the guy who designed the friggin' buildings.

The only thing I'd quibble about, pseudobrit, is that I recall the program saying essentially what Juventuz said: that the building, when constructed, was designed to take the impact from a 727, but not a 747. I believe at the time of construction, the 727 was the biggest plane extant.

[pseudobrit]

I saw the same documentary, with interviews with the guy who designed the friggin' buildings.

The only thing I'd quibble about, pseudobrit, is that I recall the program saying essentially what Juventuz said: that the building, when constructed, was designed to take the impact from a 727, but not a 747. I believe at the time of construction, the 727 was the biggest plane extant.

Nonetheless, they each survived the impact of the 767; they were overengineered.

It was the oversight concerning the insulation not being strapped down that led to the structural failure.

[dsharits]

I believe at the time of construction, the 727 was the biggest plane extant.

Nope. The 747's were out in the 60's, and the WTC was built in 1974. I watched a documentary on the WTC on the History Channel, and they said that the towers could withstand a direct hit from a 747. Either way, they obviously didn't collapse from the impact of the planes, because they wouldn't have stayed up for another hour like they did. They collapsed from the intense heat inside the building, like pseudobrit said, because the terrorists had planned on hijacking those two exact flights for the amount of fuel they would be carrying.

Daniel

[zelmo]

I remember seeing that PBS special, and they had footage of the WTC infrastructure (from an inspection) that showed how the sprayed-on insulation was insufficiently thick in some places, and completely missing in many others. I can't remember when the inspection occurred relative to the attack on 9/11, but the lack of proper insulation was what allowed the jet fuel fire to destroy the infrastructure of the buildings, causing their collapse.
It's is a tribute to the engineering that went into the towers that they collapsed straight down.

[zimv20]

in case anyone's wondering, it was Frontline who did that show.

[IJ Reilly]

Those photos are almost certainly fabrications. Not only have we all seen the multiple videos of the airplanes hitting the towers and the ensuing fireballs, what person would ever stand in a gaping hole in a building nearly 1,000 feet above the pavement?

[mischief]

At this point I can give you logical explainations for all of it.

1: The fuel in question is very heavy and has a high flashpoint (relatively little vapor in an ignitable condition without heating the fuel itself). It may very well have been a few minutes before it caught. This would mean that there was a window of time when the fuel was spreading out and moving towards flashing (enough vapors to ignite/enough oxygen to ignite the vapors/a source of energy to provide ignition). In that window of time a couple of photos could have been shot of officeworkers walking around in shock.


2:In this scenario it would have some time to spread out into all soft surfaces, seep into broken walls, fill ducts and void spaces with combustible gasses and spread out until it came into contact with a source of ignition. It's very likely that there were small spot-fires burning almost immediately. When the primary accelerant in a structural fire is a heavy fuel oil the most likely mode of ignition is Flashover. Flashover is when all sources of combustible gas (materials already burning or smoldering, accelerants, combustible materials undergoing sympathetic pyrolysis, etc.) ignite simultaniously because the mix of gasses, heat and fuel are optimal.

This occurs in all mostly closed or semi-closed structural fire environments if no mitigation of gas accumulation can be applied in time. The Flashover can be seen in the video of tower 2: The tower is impacted, smokes more and more heavily with no visible flames for several minutes, suddenly flames gout several dozen feet up into the plume of smoke (vented combustible gasses). This is Flashover as observed from the outside. Anyone or anything combustible inside the space occupied by the gas cloud at the base of that plume would have ignited as close to simultaniously as makes no difference.


3: The second attribute of this kind of fuel (heavier than lamp oil) is that once you get it to ignite it burns VERY VERY hot. Once the Fuel oil ignited it's sustained burning temperature is higher than the tempering temperature of the steel in the building. With the structure's innate bulkheads compromised and filled with a high temperature accelerant, catastrophic failure was only a matter of time after the initial Flash.

4: Very large buildings have some engineering attributes that contribute to the "clean" failure. They're designed to take impacts, handle heavy (non accelerated) fires, have resistance to seismic and wind-induced resonance and built in resistance to fire-travel. The engineering is, however compartmentalized. The regs did not require buildings to be built assuming combined factors because these events are so rare as to be considered inconsequential. The spec did, however require that these large, commercial buildings be built such that, when demolished they would fail in a predictably neat pile.

5:Since the floors are "hung" on steel and concrete uprights the fail point under extreme heat would be the steel fastners, bolts and rivets holding the floors to the uprights. When one entire floor's worth of space ignited with a high temperature accelerant it was logical to assume that the vast majority of fastners in the floor(s) immediately above the fire would fail at roughly the same time with an explosive series of pops as steel up to several inches thick underwent thermal failure and split along it's stress lines. Since the floors were not built with the weight of upper floors as part of their structural calculations the weight of them falling ten feet to the next deck would accomplish the same failure as the fire had to those that failed first and so on.

Did I miss anything?

[mactastic]

My understanding it similar to others here, that the collapse was precipitated by the effect of the blast on the fireproofing material that was sprayed onto the structural elements.

The WTC was somewhat of an unusual building in that it relied on a solid core connected to a structural outer wall by floor beams. IIRC, this method allowed for more office space than other methods available at the time (most skyscrapers use what's called a 'curtain wall' wherein a glass-and-steel wall is suspended off structural members located in from the outer wall). Anyway, the beams that tied the outer strucutral wall to the core also prevented those outer columns from buckling, a situation where a column deflects and eventually fails due not to it's inability to support the load, but rather it's inability to keep from bowing out and eventually snapping. Think drinking straw with a brick on it. When the planes went through the outer walls they dumped their fuel all over the now-exposed steel members. When floor beams connecting the core to the wall began to fail, the columns on the outer wall all buckle and snap leading one floor to 'pancake' onto the one below, which cannot support the force of the floor dropping down which leads to another collapse and another and another... all straight down.

[zimv20]

Did I miss anything?
yeah -- where you been?

[mischief]

yeah -- where you been?

Loooooooooooooooooong story. The most recent stuff is:

Been without a machine for a month. My Frankenbeige went DOA on me on dec. 23rd. I now have a new Mac Mini. I was also locked out at work for a while. The day of the keynote I just couldn't take it and found a way around the lockout. Gotta say: Windows security is a joke.

Been taking Fire Science classes which gives me tidbits like the above and a whole lot more. :D

But I'm doing well. Between the new Kiddo, Fire classes at the JC, work and consulting I haven't had time to stop and think much... Thanx for asking.

PS: I also needed some time off from the politics Forums. I refused to be in 'em around the election/inauguration.

[Thomas Veil]

Nope. The 747's were out in the 60's, and the WTC was built in 1974. Damn, I was off by an entire generation. :o

Those photos are almost certainly fabrications. Not only have we all seen the multiple videos of the airplanes hitting the towers and the ensuing fireballs, what person would ever stand in a gaping hole in a building nearly 1,000 feet above the pavement?A fabrication?! I suppose you think this is a fake too: ;) :D

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/crash.jpg

[IJ Reilly]

Ultimately, it was the failure of the outer skin of the towers which caused them to collapse. These buildings were not designed like most modern skyscrapers, which rely structurally on an interior core onto which everything else (including the floors and outer walls) are hung. Because of the demands created by the height of the towers, the architects designed a structural system which transferred most of the load to exterior bearing walls. Once this system was compromised, the buildings were bound to collapse. The fact that both towers collapsed in virtually identical fashion after very nearly the same elapsed time after impact, is evidence enough that the engineering systems devised by the designers were insufficient.

I believe the design process for the towers started in 1968. They were constructed 1970-77. The B-747 program was started in 1966 and the first aircraft flew in 1969. Production on the Lockheed L-1011 also started in 1968. Those two airplanes, along with the B-707 were all larger than the B-727.

BTW, welcome back mischief.

[IJ Reilly]

A fabrication?! I suppose you think this is a fake too: ;) :D

Man, that's sick. :p

[mischief]

(snip)
These buildings were not designed like most modern skyscrapers, which rely structurally on an interior core onto which everything else (including the floors and outer walls) are hung. Because of the demands created by the height of the towers, the architects designed a structural system which transferred most of the load to exterior bearing walls. Once this system was compromised, the buildings were bound to collapse. The fact that both towers collapsed in virtually identical fashion after very nearly the same elapsed time after impact, is evidence enough that the engineering systems devised by the designers were insufficient.

I believe the design process for the towers started in 1968. They were constructed 1970-77. The B-747 program was started in 1966 and the first aircraft flew in 1969. Production on the Lockheed L-1011 also started in 1968. Those two airplanes, along with the B-707 were all larger than the B-727.

BTW, welcome back mischief.

Thanks for the backup. I only disagree in your opinion of the engineering's insufficiency. The chances of such a "combined failure" are so low that most insurance companies would have accepted the risk of that particular gap in design. Most engineer's insurers would likely still tolerate similar gaps.

[OutThere]

What are the chances of this being real?

Ahhh. Much greater than you think.

http://thepowerhour.com/

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

[Xtremehkr]

What do I think?

I was just throwing it out there to see what kind of info would come forth. Quite a bit so far. The site I took those pictures from had a variety of ideas as well. It's all very interesting, the different reactions. Some people aren't even willing to consider that there are any other possibilities, some people believe some quite extraordinary theories.

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks for the backup. I only disagree in your opinion of the engineering's insufficiency. The chances of such a "combined failure" are so low that most insurance companies would have accepted the risk of that particular gap in design. Most engineer's insurers would likely still tolerate similar gaps.

The engineering was demonstrably insufficient. The likelihood of the event was small, which is where the acceptability of the risk comes into play. Keep in mind, the impacts were within the top 30 floors of the towers, which suggest that a much smaller impact lower down would have been just as if not more catastrophic. Structural engineers don't often get to see their buildings fail outside of a modeling environment (thankfully). I hope they learn from this one.

[Diatribe]

Says who?

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence...

You know it's actually the simplest explanation. The one they used is pretty tough to prove...

The steel melted? :rolleyes: rofl, sure.

Steel melts at 2500F to 2800F depending on the kind of steel. Now the highest temperature Kerosene can burn at is between 500F and 1500F depending on the circumstances and who you ask. Even in the best case this leaves us with a 1000F difference.
So why again is this an extraordinary claim, just because the gov said sth. different? :rolleyes:

[jadam]

You know it's actually the simplest explanation. The one they used is pretty tough to prove...

The steel melted? :rolleyes: rofl, sure.

Steel melts at 2500F to 2800F depending on the kind of steel. Now the highest temperature Kerosene can burn at is between 500F and 1500F depending on the circumstances and who you ask. Even in the best case this leaves us with a 1000F difference.
So why again is this an extraordinary claim, just because the gov said sth. different? :rolleyes:

Steel doesn't need to melt to bend apart. Once it starts bending then the stress in the steel starts to increase a lot.

[Diatribe]

Steel doesn't need to melt to bend apart. Once it starts bending then the stress in the steel starts to increase a lot.

Yes, but if it bent it wouldn't have come down straight.

[mactastic]

You know it's actually the simplest explanation. The one they used is pretty tough to prove...

The steel melted? :rolleyes: rofl, sure.

Steel melts at 2500F to 2800F depending on the kind of steel. Now the highest temperature Kerosene can burn at is between 500F and 1500F depending on the circumstances and who you ask. Even in the best case this leaves us with a 1000F difference.
So why again is this an extraordinary claim, just because the gov said sth. different? :rolleyes:

So why do all the codes require me to fireproof any steel structural member, if you say that no fire under 2500F will cause failure? Surely there are very few substances that burn that hot.

[Diatribe]

So why do all the codes require me to fireproof any steel structural member, if you say that no fire under 2500F will cause failure? Surely there are very few substances that burn that hot.

I never said it wouldn't cause failure I just said it wouldn't melt. I know it could've bent but even in that case the chance of the towers just coming straight down are pretty slim. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

[zimv20]

Yes, but if it bent it wouldn't have come down straight.
the towers weren't constructed of one piece of giant steel. we're talking about the bolts that held each floor to the external frame. once those bolts go, the floor moves more or less straight down.

[mactastic]

I never said it wouldn't cause failure I just said it wouldn't melt. I know it could've bent but even in that case the chance of the towers just coming straight down are pretty slim. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

Nobody here is arguing that the steel in the WTC melted.

[IJ Reilly]

You know it's actually the simplest explanation. The one they used is pretty tough to prove...

The steel melted? :rolleyes: rofl, sure.

Steel melts at 2500F to 2800F depending on the kind of steel. Now the highest temperature Kerosene can burn at is between 500F and 1500F depending on the circumstances and who you ask. Even in the best case this leaves us with a 1000F difference.
So why again is this an extraordinary claim, just because the gov said sth. different? :rolleyes:

Nobody said the steel "melted." Please read:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

[Diatribe]

the towers weren't constructed of one piece of giant steel. we're talking about the bolts that held each floor to the external frame. once those bolts go, the floor moves more or less straight down.

See, I am no expert and I definitely don't want to indulge in any conspiracy theories but there are way many things that are weird about this incident.
It just makes you think that there is so much controversy about so many parts of this story, not only the collapsing but the explosions heard by people, the fireman going up so high, them finding the passport of one of the terrorists, them having no clue about the attacks but being able to find out the identities of all the terrorists involved within under 20 hours... and so on...

[jadam]

Nobody said the steel "melted." Please read:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


Interesting quote from what you linked


It wasn't until Dr. Thomas Eagar saw Building 7 of the World Trade Center implode late on the afternoon of September 11th that he understood what had transpired structurally earlier that day as the Twin Towers disintegrated. A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001). In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be.

Building 7 was demolished in a controlled manner by explosives. The Twin Towers were not demolished by explosives, or where they?

[Diatribe]

Nobody said the steel "melted." Please read:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Nice read, thanks. I thought I heard someone say it melted but this makes sense. I heard so many stories now it's hard know what to believe.

[IJ Reilly]

I never said it wouldn't cause failure I just said it wouldn't melt. I know it could've bent but even in that case the chance of the towers just coming straight down are pretty slim. Possible, yes. Probable, no.

Essentially 100% probable, according to structural engineers. It's essentially not possible for a building that's as big and heavy as the WTC towers to be deflected enough to do anything but come straight down. Again, please read the article.

[maya]

There are some answered questions in regards to this tragic event, and many unanswered questions as well and the questions that have been answered have even more questioned purposes to it.

So in the end you are left with the same position as your started only this time a little more knowledge and at the same time even more confused.

You choose what you want to believe when you start reading/hearing/watching material in relation to this tragic event. The out come will always be the same confusion with new angles as to what your mind perceives what had or might had happened in the whole event and its outcomes.

There is no way for a civilian to know the true outcome as they only have bits and pieces of information and patching its like a quilt will reveal random yet numerous conclusion.

I still have yet to figure as to why people keep hashing the past, as if they have THE ONLY ANSWER that all the rest have just not seen or been misguided. Its in the past, and to prevent it from the future is only marginal to say the least, life in itself is random with numerous outcomes of tragedy and death. We all do stupid things when in a state of disbelief, there is no single conclusion for such human acts.

It seems people just love misery and remember it more, since as much as you want to believe you have no control over the outcome of your life you only makes choices, no organization controls you unless you allow them too.

This is in the past I see no reason as to what good will come of it now, reminds me of the whole titanic issue, human error(s), flaws, we learn from it, carry on already. :rolleyes:

[jadam]

Maya, you never know what could have really happened. Its our civic duty to find the truth. True there isnt that strong of a chance that the conspiracy theorists are right in this case, but you never know. And some people just want peace of mind from these crazy conspiracy theories.

[maya]

Essentially 100% probable, according to structural engineers. It's essentially not possible for a building that's as big and heavy as the WTC towers to be deflected enough to do anything but come straight down. Again, please read the article.


The building has "SWAY" built into its architecture, thus it absorbed some if not most of the shock wave that travelled in a vertical manner. That alone along with the heat would do enough damage, plus gravity it was only time as to when the building would collapse with the all this in the recipe.

I don't get as to what people obtain by posting this tragic event over and over again, you cannot bring the past or correct it however you can learn from it, to a minimal point.

You cannot predict every random yet numerous outcome of any single event, there are too many factors to include.

Get over it already. :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

the explosions heard by people
lots of things in buildings can explode when heated. fire extinguishers, for example. and thousands of tons of steel and concrete crashing down just might sound like an explosion.


finding the passport of one of the terrorists

i believe that's a myth.


them having no clue about the attacks but being able to find out the identities of all the terrorists involved within under 20 hours

perhaps richard clarke said, "let's start the search by looking on the passenger manifests for saudis buying one way tickets with cash, then cross check it to see how many were on the same flight."

then someone else could have said, "then cross check those names against those on the various watch lists, and the known members of Al Qaeda."

that would have taken, what, an hour?

[maya]

Maya, you never know what could have really happened. Its our civic duty to find the truth. True there isnt that strong of a chance that the conspiracy theorists are right in this case, but you never know. And some people just want peace of mind from these crazy conspiracy theories.

It could well be a conspiracy, and many people will look for reasons to find the ONE TRUTH, however there is no such ONE TRUTH since life has too many random event for a single plan to work the way it was. They got lucky could be an answer at best.

People will NEVER OBTAIN PEACE OF MIND, because they feel they can control life and the past when in actuality they have no such control, people love misery and by keep following and trying to find the WHITE RABBIT they have a reason to live and for they life to have some sort of purpose, without it they have nothing to life for.

Peace of mind is an arguable point at best, however it falls all upon the person(s) mentality in the end.

What if tomorrow someone steps up and says, "yeah I did it". Do you have proof that this person has indeed done it, maybe or maybe not. However this person will be trailed in court and if indeed found guilty the victims families will say that I feel at peace BS. All they have is a face to the tragedy and some sort of explanation, nothing more. Some will still continue to wonder if things were different, some will just accept it, on the whole its a resolution that one makes on they own terms and time.

[blackfox]

See, I am no expert and I definitely don't want to indulge in any conspiracy theories but there are way many things that are weird about this incident. ...SNIP...
Well, imo, any set of events that involves large jet passenger aicraft crashing into a twin skyscraper in a large metro area in the middle of a business day, strikes me as unusual, even wierd.

I mean by what criteria of normality to you judge such an thing?

To me it is at least unargueable that jets did crash into the WTC and they later collapsed. The explanations given in this thread for the collapse of the towers by IJ, Mactastic and Mischief are perfectly reasonable, informed assessments of most likely causes, and since I am an Okham's razor kinda a guy, I leave it at that.

It was a National tradgedy and as far as I am concerned the only lingering questions about it, are those involving the manipulation/appropriation of said tradgedy for political purposes.

As for the pictures, I find mischiefs explanation possible, but ultimately I am not sure they are genuine, or if so, what their larger significance could possibly be.

[IJ Reilly]

It could well be a conspiracy, and many people will look for reasons to find the ONE TRUTH, however there is no such ONE TRUTH since life has too many random event for a single plan to work the way it was. They got lucky could be an answer at best.

Well sure, it was a conspiracy -- a conspiracy by insane Islamic terrorists to kill thousands of people. What other kind of truth do you need? A whacked-out theory that makes even less sense than what actually happened? Yes, you could say they got lucky, to the extent they could hardly have known the towers would collapse. Had they withstood the impacts and the subsequent fires, the burned-out hulks would nevertheless have stood as constant reminders of our vulnerability to random acts of mass violence. And they almost certainly would have been delighted by that result.

[Xtremehkr]

The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 and did not collapse.

Link (http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm)

At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

http://toweringskyscrapers.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/esbplane.jpg

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/empire%203.jpg

http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatebldgcrash.jpg

This site (http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/13977.html) blames the fireproofing used in modern times as being basically worthless. And explains that old skyscrapers are of a much higher quality than new ones.

But this website (http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/tradecencrimes/page368.html) asks some pretty good questions about how the buildings fell which are pretty interesting.

You know, we are putting robots on other planets in the solar system, it shouldn't seem that hard for someone to offer a definitive answer to everyones questions.

[amnesiac1984]

I'm not too sure about the twin towers, but I am skeptical of the official story regarding what happened at the pentagon on 9-11.

The hole in the building is nowhere near big enough for a plane to have hit. Also, pictures exist of the first twenty minutes after the crash, before the wall and roof collapsed, clearly show only a small whole in the facade and the roofline intact along with unbroken glass on most of the windows.

Shots taken after the collapse show little evidence of flame damage in the adjoining areas. For pictures and general look at all sorts of theories from the outrageous to the plausible, here is a link (http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm)


As for a motive or possible reason for this attack, I think it is plausible. Professor Chomsky often talks of the creation of an external fear to instill nationalism as a tactic used throughout history by failing right wing power structures. He also often mentions, in his speeches about the war on terrorism, 'that 9-11 provided the perfect pre-text" for carrying out plans that he claims were already in existence prior to 9-11. It may not be the right wing government behind this, but it may be the greater financial powers that exist in this world. Bankers have been using the economy as their own little game since banking began. Fractional reserve banking and the fact that the entire world owes ridiculous amounts of money to a privileged few. Wars create more debt and these people get richer. Wealth is never destroyed. It was estimated in the 1950's that the Rothschild dynasty owned half the money on Earth, with debt only increasing since then, you can only imagine what they are worth now.

The bankers, legally under the federal reserve act of 1913, loan out money worth ten times the amount that they actually have in their vaults. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking and it is this form of counterfeiting that has been in place since the goldsmiths first started holding gold in vaults, that gives the banks their power. And they will do ANYTHING to protect it. Abe Lincoln was assassinated because he wanted to free america from the grips of the bankers, He succeeded with his greenbacks system. But it didn't last long. Many presidents who were also assassinated were involved with trying to regain control of the money supply.

History records that the money changers (international bankers) have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by* controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison
Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my*country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of* credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most* completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a* Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow* Wilson

Remeber these people make money out of war, not only because they own arms manufacturers but they loan vast sums of money to governments on both sides. Interest is charged and the fat cats get fatter. Churchill seemed to think they were something to do with the russian revolution. These guys must have profitted quite nicely from the cold war.
"From the days of Sparticus, Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Trotski, belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg and
Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the under- world of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."--Winston Churchill to the London press in 1922

I can only begin to imagine what they might be up to now, but here is what David Rockefeller thinks of it all.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. " -David Rockefeller

I no longer think this is an issue of political ideology, everyone, both left and right, should be looking into monetary reform.

click here for an interesting look at the history of global finance and international bankers and the possibility of monetary reform. (http://www.themoneymasters.com)

[jadam]

interesting.

[dsharits]

The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 and did not collapse.

Oh please. A B-25 is nowhere close to the size, speed and rigidity of a 767.

Daniel

[Xtremehkr]

Oh please. A B-25 is nowhere close to the size, speed and rigidity of a 767.

Daniel

Do you have something to show this? Warplanes were built pretty tough, I mean, the engine went clear through the building and onto another.

[Juventuz]

Do you have something to show this? Warplanes were built pretty tough, I mean, the engine went clear through the building and onto another.

Boeing 767
Height: 52 feet
Wingspan: 156 feet
Length: 159 feet
Fuel Capacity: 23,980 gallons

B-25
Height: 15 feet
Wingspan: 67 feet
Length: 54 feet.
Fuel Capacity: 670 gallons

Just do a Google search and you can see for yourself.

Two TOTALLY different types of planes. There's no way to compare the two instances.

[Don't panic]

Do you have something to show this? Warplanes were built pretty tough, I mean, the engine went clear through the building and onto another.

B25s were smaller:

............................B25............747
length....................51 ft...........231 ft
wingspan................67 ft...........212 ft
weigth (empty)........20,000 lb..... 400,000 lb
speed ....................230 mph......590 mph

[blackfox]

Oh please. A B-25 is nowhere close to the size, speed and rigidity of a 767.

Daniel

What exactly are you arguing here? That the WTC was as well built as the Empire State Building, or that the Empire State Building was built as poorly as the WTC? That the terrorists did their homework? That modern planes make bigger holes?

Yes, the 767 is bigger and heavier than the B25 and travels faster. Good for you.

You do realize that only rarely do issues of patriotism/politics enter into the realms of architecture,engineering and physics, if ever.

*edit* If I am missing something here, I'm sorry. Daniel, I don't want to come off as unduly contentious but I just don't see your larger point. Frankly, I am not sure I see Xtremehkr's either, unless it is purely one of curiousity and inquiry...

[Xtremehkr]

There is no doubt that they are different kinds of planes, they hit different kinds of skyscrapers as well.

There is a huge difference in fuel capacity, that is true.

But in reference to the pictures in which this thread was based, what happened to all of that fuel if there are people walking around so soon after the impact?

If the pictures are not documented it poses some interesting questions. Could it have been that most of the fuel did not make it into the building? For it to have been that hot in there, those people should be dead.

I wonder what the floor plans of the Empire State and the Trade Towers looked like.

[Xtremehkr]

If a raging inferno immediately engulfed the interior of the buildings, warping all of that steel, or making it fail completely, why didn't windows start breaking as the building lost shape? Why didn't it buckle?

It was hit from the side, meaning that most of the damage would have been in one area, perhaps fanning out from that area, and yet the buildings implode. How do those physics work?

[Xtremehkr]

B25s were smaller:

............................B25............747
length....................51 ft...........231 ft
wingspan................67 ft...........212 ft
weigth (empty)........20,000 lb..... 400,000 lb
speed ....................230 mph......590 mph

It won't change much but they were 767s.

[Don't panic]

It won't change much but they were 767s.

i stand corrected :)

[Xtremehkr]

I don't know, not even the pylons showing at the impact point in the pictures look particularly melted to me. Not very many windows blown out which would be consistent with a massive interior explosion.

It's all speculation anyway. I hadn't taken it all that seriously until I saw those people standing there, and I thought I would play with the idea.

[zimv20]

If a raging inferno immediately engulfed the interior of the buildings, warping all of that steel, or making it fail completely, why didn't windows start breaking as the building lost shape? Why didn't it buckle?

check out the Frontline piece on it the next time it's on. i think it'll give you a better picture of what happened.

[Diatribe]

The only thing that really strikes me odd is the scope of this attack. Look at all the attacks Al Quaida pulled off before and afterwards. The embassy bombing in Afrika, the USS Cole bombing the bombing in Asia in the club, etc., etc. ALL were so tiny compared to the attack on the twin towers. Tiny compared by cost, complexity, effort, manpower, strategic planning, needed cover, etc.
Why have they not duplicated something even remotely that size? They often said they would but never did. And don't tell me it is because the security is now better... it's pretty much the same standard despite what everybody wants us to believe.

[jadam]

...[/URL]

To what you posted before on the whole federal reserve system.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

[jadam]

About 9/11

http://www.apfn.org/MOVIES/911.PPT


some pictures from that powerpoint presentation



One thing that interests me is, look at picture 5. Planes store fuel along the fueselage of the plane, not in the main body of it. If that is the case, why is there a flame where the body of the plane would be?
Plus whats up with the front lawn, why so clean?!

[dsharits]

What exactly are you arguing here? That the WTC was as well built as the Empire State Building, or that the Empire State Building was built as poorly as the WTC? That the terrorists did their homework? That modern planes make bigger holes?

Sorry if I was unclear. My point was that you can't possibly compare a B-25 impacting the Empire State Building to the 767's impacting the WTC. Two totally different planes in terms of size, velocity and weight. The buildings were totally different structures also. The WTC had an outer-skin support, while the Empire State Building is the traditional internal steel beam support. Not to mention the fact that Jet-A fuel is much more potent than the fuel used in the conventional radial piston engines. You cannot look at the two situations and say that because one didn't collapse that te other one shouldn't have. Totally different scenarios, totally different results.

Daniel

[IJ Reilly]

Fuselage = body (with the general exception of the tail assembly, which is called the empennage). On an airliner, fuel is stored in tanks within the wings and fuselage.

[jadam]

Fuselage = body (with the general exception of the tail assembly, which is called the empennage). On an airliner, fuel is stored in tanks within the wings and fuselage.


Ok, my point still stands though, a majority of the fuel in a plane is stored along the wings, how come the flame was in the center? And how come the ground was barely scathed?

[mischief]

The ignition temperature of Jet-A fuel in an open and pure environment is fairly low. However the Heat Energy Content of jet fuel is very high. Generally speaking: as the molecular weight of a simple hydrocarbon increases, so does it's free-burning temperature and the resulting heat-output. The resulting BTU's must be factored into the pre existing environment. Commercial structural fires (warehouse, etc.) have enough heat alone to fail steel as accounted here:

http://www.mutualbox.com/a_building_fire_and_structural_f.htm

"Steel will start to lose its strength rapidly at 1000 degrees. This temperature is easily obtained in a normal single family dwelling room and contents fire. In a warehouse fire these temperatures are obtained very rapidly. The building materials act like a heat sink. The steel and masonry walls absorb most of the heat generated. When steel absorbs heat at such a rapid rate as in a fire the steel will begin to expand, twist and bend. When any of these things are happening the steel is failing."

When you add in the energy of several thousand gallons of high-temperature fuel this process is quite pronounced and it becomes possible for the aluminum, magnesium, zinc and other metals in the Plane debris and office furniture to burn as well.

In terms of the above photos...

The bottom pic of the plane with wingtip POI drawn in does not take into account deformation of the aircraft as the foreward sections were compressed and folded. This process would swing the wings backward as foreward fuselage compressed outwards and backwards, shearing at the top and bottom.


As to the scope of the attack:

People in the US make this mistake continuously. Al Quaida is NOT a coherent and regimented organization as would be a drug cartel or Mafia. They operate in Cells of 2 to 8 members that "grapevine" their plans, ideas and resources through an amazingly intricate series of word-of-mouth favors and relayed entendre. The success of the particular Cell was the success of the particular plan. Since the conspirators of that Cell were either killed in the attack or inprisoned it's talent died with it. Let it go.


There was a question of damage from the "explosion". The media used the word "explosion" because it was illustrative, not because it was accurate. The phrasing used was: "Explosion and resulting fire led to the collapse." This is highly innaccurate.

The accurate phrasing is as follows:

The explosive impact of a large aircraft blew apart a significant portion of the outer skin of the building around the point of impact, disintigrated the plane almost instantly, spreading jetfuel and combustible material throughout an enclosed debris field and facilitated and/or ignited several immediate spot-fires.

The resulting flashover and conflagration fire raised the temperature of the remaining intact steel structure past the point at which it could maintain molecular integrity through a process of radiant and direct flame heating contributing to thermal failure of the steel after approximately fifty minutes.

Due to the interdependant nature of the modular steel construction used, the critical failure threshold of the floor/cieling could be demonstrably confined to a few key elements reaching thermal failure conditions. Added weight and tortion stress to the remaining steel coupled with pre-existing heat stress would have failed the rest of the structural assembly almost immediately.

It's a bit less catchy that way isn't it?


BTW:
The sudden failure of steel at high weight or tortional loads has been described as explosive, producing a noise like dynamite. This would explain the accounts of (supposed) eye-witnesses claiming to have heard explosives in the main towers.

[mischief]

Ok, my point still stands though, a majority of the fuel in a plane is stored along the wings, how come the flame was in the center? And how come the ground was barely scathed?

As I recall the tanks in that model sit below the cabin, between the wings.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't know if it's the majority or not, but the wing tanks are generally located inboard, near the wing roots (for obvious reasons). As for what gets burnt, you might consider the physics of a fragile object like an aluminum airplane colliding at 400-500 mph with a solid object like a building. Once the airplane disintegrates (nearly instantly, I would expect), that leaves the Jet fuel which I should think would continue traveling in an airborne tidal wave in the general direction the airplane was traveling on impact.

[pseudobrit]

Ok, my point still stands though, a majority of the fuel in a plane is stored along the wings, how come the flame was in the center? And how come the ground was barely scathed?

Because it didn't touch the ground.

Look, if you want to join the ranks of the kooks who think we blew up the Pentagon with missiles or something, go right ahead.

My brother (in Iraq now, at the time he was in D.C.'s Honor Guard) was picking up body parts and plane pieces for weeks. Maybe you'd want to talk to him about the Jet-A that saturated the building. Would you believe it then?

[mischief]

what the kooks don't know is that THEY've been engineering a one world government under the auspices of the UN since the last big Illuminati convention in 1919 (ooohhh.. double number *shudder*).

THEY used an orbital strike Maser on the Oklahoma City Fed building when the CIA got too close and have acess to a giant Soviet built, Japanese guided and American refined global plasma weapons grid capable of surveilling anything within the ionosphere...

THEY used the orbital platform to take out the WTC and dammage the Pentagon and used their doomsday weapon to build a big hologram of arabs in planes.



Come on people get a grip. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Come on people get a grip. ;)

I had a grip, until I read this post. Now where the heck did I put that tinfoil beanie?

[mactastic]

At least yours is small. Mine's a tinfoil sombrero. :p

[blackfox]

oh dear...I've been using aluminum foil for my headgear...

I just put it over an existing BB hat...sloppy.

[amnesiac1984]

I'm not ready to believe the official version of events just because the conspiracy theories sound too crazy. I do believe there is the potential for a motive, and there are people out there with more power than you can imagine. Conspiracy theory is a term that has gradually lost its meaning, we automatically give less credit to a theory, because it is called a conspiracy theory. Where does that leave us, does that mean we just have assume to trust people in positions of power, you don't have to look very far back in history to see that power is easily abused. (Nixon)

The problem is we cannot really rely on the media too easily, its become so ratings based and dumbed down that most smaller media groups just follow the lead.

***"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
*** "An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers." U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917.



And just in case you thought that was old news, here Mr Rockefeller himself, perhaps the Rothschilds gave him a bit of a telling off for 'saying too much' after this speech
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion
for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if
we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more
sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty
of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination
practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting
in June of 1991

[zimv20]

links, please

[Xtremehkr]

Well, I am glad that some are so comfortable with their lives as never to even risk considering that there isn't a lot of collusion in the world. It would be an uncomfortable thought, to think that things are not all as they seem.

Just reading work from a Historian like Howard Zinn exposes some of histories most conspiratorial moments. Everyone likes to think that we have advanced beyond things like that though, which holds until we invade Iraq based on ******** reasons and do some of the things the current administration is doing. At that point it doesn't seem so ridiculous.

[mischief]

Well, I am glad that some are so comfortable with their lives as never to even risk considering that there isn't a lot of collusion in the world. It would be an uncomfortable thought, to think that things are not all as they seem.

Just reading work from a Historian like Howard Zinn exposes some of histories most conspiratorial moments. Everyone likes to think that we have advanced beyond things like that though, which holds until we invade Iraq based on ******** reasons and do some of the things the current administration is doing. At that point it doesn't seem so ridiculous.

I don't think we've advanced beyond it so much as we're now moving too fast and society has become too complex for such grand scheming as conspiracy theorists assume.

I think there's more to be said for patterns and ramifications than direct collusion of primary players in events.

I believe that in this stage in history, more than any previous the speed and intricacy of global society has spawned something new that falls between coincidence and collusion. In previous times this type of event or series of events was called Fate or Karma. I like to think of it as the social equivalent of the laws of physics.

For instance: Most 911 conspiracy theorems begin by tying together a lot of people by their money relationships and throwing out the rest of their history involved; much as the media throws out the money relationships and looks only at the public ties. The truth is most likely that both things are accurate and the truth is a somewhat more intricate hybrid of greed, mutual backstabbing and expediency that falls in between the two models presented.

I find the only way to make sense of all this is to take the data as a whole, not discounting any of it and sorting to remove statistical anomalies. These anomalies usualy involve grand plots of world domination by mythic (fictional popular mythic) organizations. After ruling out obvious blips like the Illuminatti, the Masons, the UN conspiracy, the Pliedians, the Reptiles, etc. I focus on human motivations as modified by culture, family status, religion, etc.

This usually leads me to a model with which I can quite accurately predict future actions from a particular direction.

Examples:

* I was able to predict the rash of school shootings across the US by two years. I could see it in the freshmen.

* I was able to predict a spectacular terrorist event based in one of the countries formerly heavy in middle-east CIA action centered around Y2K. The obvious candidates were the DIsney theme parks, the WTC, and Vegas. The uncertain part was that there was enough hubbub around Y2K itself that it was likely any attack would come either before or after by several months.

In short: If you want to know what's going on out there the data is all around you, just avoid paranoia and assume that all the players are both human and slightly flawed either by ego (insecurity) or zealotry (xenophobia).

[amnesiac1984]

links, please

I can show you links to pages where these quotes are listed alongside other relevant quotes, but I cannot personally verify them. The quote from david rockefeller is well known but it was said at the Tri-Lateral Commission which is a secret meeting.
http://www.freedomdomain.com/nwoquote.htm

I don't know who is behind anything, there are thousands of variations of conspiracy theories out there. I would happily sit back and accept that everything was probably as it seemed, if it wasn't for the fact that my eyes were opened to one single, indisputable fact. The Fractional Reserve Banking system.

This is what allows our 'debt based economy'. In the old days banks printed notes that were 100% backed up by gold they had in their vaults. Soon they realised that they easily had enough gold to keep up with the demand for actual gold at any one time, so they started printing, and they were allowed too, more money than they had in gold. This is called Fractional Reserve Banking, now they only have to have 10% of the money they print backed up in capitol.

As any economist knows, you start introducing more money out of nothing then the value of a currency drops. King Henry VIII was so angry at the bankers for constantly messing with the value of Sterling for their own gain that he introduced his own system of currency called tally sticks. This was like banknotes but it consisted of a stick with notches cut into it. The currency was widely used by people with wealth as it maintained a constant value, in fact the british empire was almost built on the tally sticks until they were discontinued in 1836.

At the start of the Great Depression millions of people lost everything because of a crash in the value of the dollar. Bankers, who deliberately caused this crash, were able to buy up corporations for pennies on the dollar and the recently set up Federal Reserve Bank, which was put in place to keep money flowing in times of recession, consistently did nothing to help the situation. Surely, the federal Reserve Bank should have the interests of the American People as its major priority. Why should it? Its a private corporation whose only priority is the wishes of its stock holders, who are? Chase Manhattan, J.P Morgan, The international banking dynasties who started the whole thing in the first place. Why was Abe Lincoln shot for creating a currency that was controlled by the government if this is not a big deal. The truth is that this single fact, Fractional Reserve Banking, is the source of power for the banking elite and they will stop at nothing to keep this source of power. That is your motive.

Amschel Mayer Rothschild owner of the Rothschild bank in Frankfurt. (1773-1855) in 1838 said: “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

[Xtremehkr]

I don't think we've advanced beyond it so much as we're now moving too fast and society has become too complex for such grand scheming as conspiracy theorists assume.



And I would say exactly the opposite. People rarely have time to notice what is going on and the rest of the time is devoted to the pursuit of material things and watching TV. There has never been a time when more information is so easily accessible and yet people are more uninformed than ever.

In a lot of cases, people choose to get their news, views, opinions and political positions from talking heads who spin garbage on a daily basis.

Have you checked on the PR budget for the Whitehouse this year?

Have you not noticed how they selectively distribute their news?

Is it just easier to be complacent?

[zimv20]

I can show you links to pages where these quotes are listed alongside other relevant quotes, but I cannot personally verify them.
that's all we need. that way we can decide for ourselves. thanks for the link.

[Xtremehkr]

Oh, and how many people thought/think that there were/are WMDs in Iraq?

Just as one example of how informed we all are.

What percentage of high schoolers think that the government needs to be able to limit free speech? Surely we are beyond having to enforce the importance of free speech?

A couple of generations of poor schooling and self indulgence could not lead right back to ignorance could it? Surely history does not repeat over and over ad infitum. Really? It has so far anyway.

[mischief]

And I would say exactly the opposite. People rarely have time to notice what is going on and the rest of the time is devoted to the pursuit of material things and watching TV. There has never been a time when more information is so easily accessible and yet people are more uninformed than ever.



The complacency lies in pinning the US's problems on faceless conspiracies rather than acknowledging complicity of the electorate in electing and tolerating corrupt politicians.

There are no patriots in this country, just scared, cynical citizens.

[Xtremehkr]

The complacency lies in pinning the US's problems on faceless conspiracies rather than acknowledging complicity of the electorate in electing and tolerating corrupt politicians.

There are no patriots in this country, just scared, cynical citizens.

Faceless conspiracies? there are some fairly blatant ones related to big oil and the not so subtle objectives of organizations like the PNAC. Don't you think?

[mischief]

Faceless conspiracies? there are some fairly blatant ones related to big oil and the not so subtle objectives of organizations like the PNAC. Don't you think?

That's not a conspiracy, that's a Cabal.

[Xtremehkr]

eh, are they not conspiring with others?

[mischief]

eh, are they not conspiring with others?

No. They're scumbags with similar goals and interests. Some of them act together some of the time but in a pinch they're more than willing to act against one another.

I think you're being more than a little fast and loose with that "c" word.

[amnesiac1984]

No. They're scumbags with similar goals and interests. Some of them act together some of the time but in a pinch they're more than willing to act against one another.

I think you're being more than a little fast and loose with that "c" word.

I think the confusion comes from seeing it as a conspiracy with a grand plan for humanity, whereas in reality, the people who have this much power just see it all as a great big game. They have huge legacies of things to live up to done by their forefathers who managed to start wars and depressions. They may well have lost influence at certain times, but then it wouldn't be a game would it? As long as they can keep the source of their power intact they will continue to play with our world as it tickles their fancy.

[Xtremehkr]

No. They're scumbags with similar goals and interests. Some of them act together some of the time but in a pinch they're more than willing to act against one another.

I think you're being more than a little fast and loose with that "c" word.

this line of "thought" has become more than tedious. You win. Congrats.

[solvs]

just scared, cynical citizens.
Many of whom are so cynical, they don't vote. Ironic, isn't it. Of course, give us a candidate we can trust, and we will vote for him. Until then, the idealist and extremes of both parties who care enough either way are the ones making the decisions. Look at gay marrige. Sure 60% of voters don't want it, but that's of those that care. What about those that don't? I'd have to believe many of them don't care enough either way, so their voice doesn't count as much as it should. The very fact that so many people don't care if same-sex couples get get married, makes me think it really is a non-issue and people aren't as against it as the neo-cons say.

Reading the rest of the thread, I'm kinda sorry I helped bring up the whole conspiracy thing. I didn't say it was, just said there were unanswered questions, mostly about incompetance. As SiliconAddict might say, incompetance does not equal conspiracy.

[mischief]

this line of "thought" has become more than tedious. You win. Congrats.

Cool. I've been pooh pooh'd. :D :p

I think that amnesiac and solvs rounded things out nicely. The problem I have with "CONSPIRACY" being the word used to explain the current state of affairs is that it's a nicely insurmountable word that lets those who use it remain intellectually lazy in regards to current events.

If you do not fall into that catagory and were simply using the word in it's somewhat under utilized and overly imprecise literal context, I apologize with the following footnote:

A conversation such as the ones on this forum could also be seen as falling within the literal definition of conspiracy, excepting of course the lack of mutual atmosphere. ;)

[amnesiac1984]

Cool. I've been pooh pooh'd. :D :p

I think that amnesiac and solvs rounded things out nicely. The problem I have with "CONSPIRACY" being the word used to explain the current state of affairs is that it's a nicely insurmountable word that lets those who use it remain intellectually lazy in regards to current events.

If you do not fall into that catagory and were simply using the word in it's somewhat under utilized and overly imprecise literal context, I apologize with the following footnote:

A conversation such as the ones on this forum could also be seen as falling within the literal definition of conspiracy, excepting of course the lack of mutual atmosphere. ;)

nice to know you feel rounded off. :P I, however, don't, I still feel the urgent need for something to be done because the worse case scenario is that we are all slaves by 2012 and the best case scenario is more innocent people dying and the rich poor gap getting even larger and national debt increasing, which either intended by conspiracy or just the result incompetence, still needs to be sorted out. Thats why I feel a sense of urgency that doesn't really exist in the calm discussion of policy on internet forums. The reason, perhaps, for me feeling more urgent than before is that there could be a simple to solution. Monetary Reform, stop treating money as a commodity and return to a theot or theok (I've never actually seen it written down) currency, like jefferson, jackson and lincoln (among others) did and we'll be working for a better future and there'll be enough wealth to go around, without the money markets and bankers syphoning off well over half the worlds wealth into their own coffers.

As for the conspiracy v incompetence it reminds me of that simpsons when Homer stole a nuclear sub but it was Okay because 'It's my first day' Maybe Mr Groening is trying to tell us something. :D

[mischief]

I'm currently taking a Fire Investigation course from a highly experienced investigator through my local JC. He just got back from an investigations conference back east. He told us last night that the most recent reports from the investigative agencies involved showed the folowing:

The Jet-A was not the main source of heat. The fuel caught quickly and burned off rapidly; however it contributed to an extensive flashover which set the cubicles on fire. There was enough combustible material of complex enough compounds that the contents of the 2 floors set ablaze were the source of the heat that failed the building.

Note: The usual way office furniture is made fire resistant is to use more complex, longer chain polymers in their construction. The problem with this approach is that, though the ignition temperature is raised the free-burning temperature is also raised. This means that the very safety measures built into the office furniture doomed the building.

[zimv20]

Note: The usual way office furniture is made fire resistant is to use more complex, longer chain polymers in their construction. The problem with this approach is that, though the ignition temperature is raised the free-burning temperature is also raised. This means that the very safety measures built into the office furniture doomed the building.
that... is the most interesting thing i've heard all day.

[amnesiac1984]

interesting stuff about the furniture there. I saw another interesting look at the footage of the buildings collapsing the other day. The speed at which they collapsed doesn't seem to support the 'weight of floors hitting floor below causing the building to fall' theory. In fact analysis of the footage shows it took approximately 8 seconds to fall down. that is the time it would have taken a steel girder to free fall from the top of the building. Now, if the collapse was caused by floors hitting, that implies some resistance to the fall, therefore free fall speed would not be achieved. A building detonated on purpose however does fall at free fall speed and numerous examples show this. Along with reports from fireman that all the office furniture and equipment had nearly disintegrated and the eye witness fireman who described explosions occurring. But what not many people mention is the fact that they definitely did detonate building 7 at 5pm on 9/11. If you don't believe there is a television interview with larry silverstein (sp?) where he admits to 'pulling' building 7. Yet the official story is that the government doesn't know how building 7 collapsed.

Just watch any of the 9/11 conspiracy propaganda films and you'll see that interview with larry silverstein.

[jadam]

Check this out

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

I highly recommend getting the video, I managed to get it from one of my friends and really the evidence is irefutable... The Government IS covering it up, and they DID have something to do with this.

[Diatribe]

Check this out

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

I highly recommend getting the video, I managed to get it from one of my friends and really the evidence is irefutable... The Government IS covering it up, and they DID have something to do with this.

Wow, I had never heard about that. Interesting photos, I still stand by my point that this couldn't have been planned by Al-Qaida, this only gives more proof to my theory. Nice find, thanks.

[blackfox]

Check this out

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

I highly recommend getting the video, I managed to get it from one of my friends and really the evidence is irefutable... The Government IS covering it up, and they DID have something to do with this.
Interesting site. I poked around for a while, and a fairly compelling case is made.

It raises a few questions for me, perhaps I just didn't look hard enough, but:

- If flight 175 wasn't flight 175, but a military 767 with "attachments", what happened to flight 175 and all the people on board?

- If the first plane (forgot flight#)to crash into the WTC was a "decoy", what does that mean? Was that the actual plane it was supposed to be? Did it make a big explosion (can't remember) also?

- If flight 93 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what happened to it? and it's passengers?

- what is the significance of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania? Of the cell phone calls made by passengers?

- who were the "terrorists", did they actually exist? If so, where do they figure in?

This all makes my head hurt...

[jadam]

The site doesn't try to explain those, it merely represents the facts about the events you have to draw your own conclusions.

Its not something the USA is incapable of doing, look what happened in the 1950s with the CIA and Iran http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html


http://www.911inplanesite.com/911synopsis.html

Look at the actual wreckage found at the 9/11 site from the turbine and then look at the turbine of a Tomahawk cruise missile, then look at the turbine of a 757, hrmm which one looks more similiar?

[pseudobrit]

- If flight 93 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what happened to it? and it's passengers?

And what was with all those body parts, plane pieces and fuel that my brother (with 3ID's Old Guard at the time) had to clean up? I suppose that was all fake too. :rolleyes:

[jadam]

And what was with all those body parts, plane pieces and fuel that my brother (with 3ID's Old Guard at the time) had to clean up? I suppose that was all fake too. :rolleyes:


what plane pieces? The bodies were most likely from the pentagon itself.



Im sorry but planes dont make holes like the one below... Especially not 757s

[blackfox]

To me the point about the fate of the planes/people that if,as suggested, actually didn't hit their various publicized targets, is important to the whole viability of any theory.

To accept the scenario(s) described by that site, to me implies that several planes worth of passengers were hijacked by own own government and liquidated. Not to mention an amazingly broad level of complicity.

I am not saying that valid technical points are not made, but I have a hard time believing the logistics and ramifications of such a course of action.

This was not done in a distant country, nor was it able to rely on strict Stalinist measures of arbitrary death and imprisonment without accountability. It strains credibility taken as a whole.

[pseudobrit]

what plane pieces? The bodies were most likely from the pentagon itself.

There were pieces of aircraft amongst the wreckage.

The government can't deliver the mail. How could they perpetrate murder on such a scale with so many willing and absolutely airtight accomplices?

[jadam]

There were pieces of aircraft amongst the wreckage.

The government can't deliver the mail. How could they perpetrate murder on such a scale with so many willing and absolutely airtight accomplices?


look at the pictures I posted above, those were the "airplane" pieces they found, they look nothing like any piece on a 757.

And how could they perpetrate murder on such a scale? They have their reasons, oil is one. Like I said in the previous post, the CIA has done many covert ops to overthrow governments, Iran being one of them and the CIA document was leaked for the cover op that occured in Iran in the 1950s.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

Who knows really, what the government should really do is show the evidence, prove to us that it really was the terrorists. Where is Osama? They probablly never captured him because its in their best interest not to do so, so that they can use him as a scapegoat to pass the next USA PATRIOT act and so that they can continue to take away our freedoms that are given to us in the constitution.

[jadam]

Then again

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

[jadam]

Ohh and check out operation northwoods, its the 9/11 of the 1950s that didnt happen.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

[blackfox]

And how could they perpetrate murder on such a scale? They have their reasons, oil is one. Like I said in the previous post, the CIA has done many covert ops to overthrow governments, Iran being one of them and the CIA document was leaked for the cover op that occured in Iran in the 1950s. You answered "why"?, not "how"? Much different. I'd like to have 10 billion dollars. Why? because then I could do all kinds of things. How? I haven't a clue. See? That's why I don't have 10 billion dollars.


Who knows really, what the government should really do is show the evidence, prove to us that it really was the terrorists. Where is Osama? They probablly never captured him because its in their best interest not to do so, so that they can use him as a scapegoat to pass the next USA PATRIOT act and so that they can continue to take away our freedoms that are given to us in the constitution.
Speculation. Even the government is innocent until proven guilty, and as much as that may be exploited, the basic tenets of our democracy are done no service being further subverted to follow some sense of righteousness, legitimate or otherwise.

[mischief]

look at the pictures I posted above, those were the "airplane" pieces they found, they look nothing like any piece on a 757.

.

I'm looking at the "turbine" at the crash and what I see is the foreward mounting plate and spindle assembly with the cowling and blades shorn/burned off. You can see the assembly with attatched blades and cowling to the right of the worker's head in the upper left thumbnail.

The (extremely poor) image of the underside of that 757 shows no such bulge. What you're seeing is a distorted image of manhattan at close range as reflected in the polished underside of a very clean aircraft.

As to explosives vs collapse:

When a building is detonated all the floors are detonated within tenths of a second of one another such that they all freefall together until impacting the ground.

The tensile strength in a building is calculated to ballance the known load of the structure, the probable load of the contents of each floor and the lateral stresses from wind, heat and seismic with the cost of materials and practical concerns of getting it all hundreds of feet in the air. Sudden impactive force (straight down)is not factored in.

Let's say only one floor collapsed due directly to heat failure of steel. We'll say that the floor was 200' by 200',that's 40,000 square feet. We'll further assume that each square foot weighed 100Lb when the structure, fixtures, furniture, etc are factored in. That's a static load of four million pounds.

Now we get into M*V^2. As I recall it takes about 2.5 seconds to fall ten feet. At 32' per second squared that's 80' per second at imact with the floor below or:4 million pounds times 6400 feet per second or an impact force of twenty five billion six hundred million pounds. As you can see this is well above the static load value even with padding for lateral force. This is, in fact quite enough to snap all the connectors tying the floor below to it's support gurders.

Now, you say... "That's just one floor!" Aha! Okay, so we now double the falling mass and begin again at zero velocity a fraction of a second later and fall another ten feet. Eight million pounds falls for 2.5 seconds and impacts as fifty one billion two hundred million pounds.

Do you think those impacts and all that snapping steel might sound a tad bit explosive?

Do you think perhaps the repeated use of diesel fireballs in movies and TV action dramas might have something to do with the use of the word "explosive" when describing what happened? An explosion generates force, if you can see it it's a wave of compressed air that distorts light or you're seeing debris and vaporized bomb fragments. A fireball generates visible expanding flame.

As to the "near vaporization" of furniture. That's perfectly consistent with my previous descriptions. When you get a fire burning with nice, complex hydrocarbons like polyester and long chain polymers designed to have a high point of ignition you have a fire that can burn everything flammable including burnable metals like aluminum and magnesium. Let that sucker burn uncontrolled for a few days in a huge messy pile and you'll have very little left but puddles of slag amid drifts of white ash left by only the most complex materials.

[amnesiac1984]

Then again

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

This page does a good job of poo-pooing the pentagon theories. In all honesty though, considering the actions taken since by the administration, 9-11 was either known about and wanted or Bush's prayers were answered. "Please lord reign hell-fire down on my people so they will be fearful enough to follow me, the righteous one, into the promised land" :p

[~loserman~]

what plane pieces? The bodies were most likely from the pentagon itself.



Im sorry but planes dont make holes like the one below... Especially not 757s


THIS MAKES ME MAD...
IT WAS A PLANE... I SAW IT.
I had just dropped off a friend at the Pentagon and then headed North West to my job in Rosslyn. The Plane almost flew over my car and then hit the Pentagon. It freaked me out.
I dont understand how so many people can believe this conspiracy crap.

[pseudobrit]

THIS MAKES ME MAD...
IT WAS A PLANE... I SAW IT.
I had just dropped off a friend at the Pentagon and then headed North West to my job in Rosslyn. The Plane almost flew over my car and then hit the Pentagon. It freaked me out.
I dont understand how so many people can believe this conspiracy crap.

Are you sure it wasn't a cruise missile with a 757 costume on? Or that it wasn't maybe switched at the last possible moment with a cruise missile, then it safely landed, the crew and passengers were liquidated and the plane was dismantled?

How do you know... for sure...???

[mactastic]

How do you know... for sure...???

Cue X-Files music and fade to black....

[mischief]

From the magazine that brought you advance notice of CIA's "Blackbird" spyplane and has consistently provided other intelligent analysis, I bring you the March 2005 issue's "Debunking 9/11's conspiracy theories" (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y)

Note: My previous paraphrasing as taken from my Fire Investigation instructor was from the NIST report mentioned. Look NIST up, it's a very cool organization... like the Firefighting equivalent of UL Labs or NTSB.

[mischief]

Cue X-Files music and fade to black....

I got David Duchovny good and drunk and he told me that all three planes were piloted by Krychek. A project for interstellar propulsion the US government traded millions of frozen embryos for was used to repeatedly move him around to make this possible.... His growing mental instability over the course of the X-Files series was apparently due to his cognition of existing in several places at once and somehow being aware of his own many deaths.

The passengers on all three planes had been replaced by the cast and crew from the series as they had "come too close"... Only Duchovny escaped and now lives in hiding in Saskatchewan.

[~loserman~]

pseudobrit
mactastic
mischief

Very funny replies....
It looks like there are some folks here who have some sense :)