911 was an inside job [Archive]

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 06:37 PM

Yes, I said it. I came across a DVD the other day called "911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions" and watching it was not only creepy, but shocking. The person who made it announces in the beginning how he is a conservative republican, and how he was outraged by the talk of 911 being an inside job. As he went on to prove this wrong (that it was set up), he came realized that the story that the public was told, not the story of the 911 set up, was false.

The movie is about 90 minutes along, and just piles on the evidence about how explosives were set off after the planes hit the buildings to cause the buildings to fall, not the "extreme temperatures" caused by the planes crashing into the towers. As you look deeper into the mystery, many important facts are told that were not told to the general public, amazingly enough. Such as one guy who made an insurance claim for seven billion dollars, and in his insurance policy (which was made before the attacks of 911) he required that he would be covered against not one, but two attacks, specifically: terrorist attacks. People should have known that someone got rich off of 911.

I have so far made 24 copies of the DVD and with the help of my uncle, are handing them out to people (mostly conservative republicans that we know) and getting them to watch the movie to see the truth. I know that nearly all of you will assume this is "liberal propeganda" but just watch the movie, and do some research. You will be surprised by what you will find. Visit www.911mysteries.com for more information. Bring on the comments.

EDIT: Ok, you guys seem to have misunderstood me a little bit. My point isn't that Bush is evil and blew up the Twin Towers. My point is that those towers did not fall because of a plane, and that explosives were planted within a few weeks prior to the attacks. Do not attack the film if you have not seen it, and do not make claims that directly contradict those made in the film, because like I said, physics doesn't lie. The point of this topic is to discuss the film, the possibility of the government being involved, and the unfinished stories behind 911, such as Building 7... someone please explain how that thing came down. Also, I am not saying that there weren't terrorists in that plant that hit the towers, I am just saying that there is more to it than that.

ghall

Mar 15, 2007, 06:43 PM

I've seen a similar documentary. I forget what it was called though. It was pretty interesting. I personally don't know what to believe.

MBHockey

Mar 15, 2007, 06:44 PM

mrkramer

Mar 15, 2007, 06:50 PM

I've seen some of the conspiracy theories about it and I don't think that it was done by our government. If there actually any bombs set off inside, why couldn't they have been planted by terrorists, if they were able to hijack 4 planes I don't think it would have been much harder to plant a few bombs. The only thing our government did to help it was to make a few mistakes, and not act on threats that they were getting.

NotFound

Mar 15, 2007, 06:54 PM

I know that nearly all of you will assume this is "liberal propeganda" but just watch the movie, and do some research.

People like you who throw the word liberal around ruin everything for the real liberals everywhere.

I am a liberal but I do NOT believe that 9/11 was an "inside job"

MBHockey

Mar 15, 2007, 06:58 PM

To conclude that 9/11 was an inside job would mean, flat out, that Bush is an evil man (according to all these conspiracy theories.)

Now, I do NOT like Bush. I think he is irresponsible and whimsical with important decisions...but i do NOT think he is evil and would want to see that many people die in such a horrible event just for money. You've gotta be kidding me.

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 06:59 PM

People like you who throw the word liberal around ruin everything for the real liberals everywhere.

Well... I was just using that expression in anticipation of all of the conservatives who use it aginst real liberals, like me. I could get into it, but I won't bother. One guy who I brought this up two said it just like that, and I guess I was expecting more people on here to do the same.

psychofreak

Mar 15, 2007, 07:02 PM

I do not believe it was an inside job...HOWEVER I don't think that we know the true story...something smells fishy...

obeygiant

Mar 15, 2007, 07:09 PM

yeah, uhh, nice thread.
For another look at this fantastic story try these sites

http://www.jewsdidwtc.com

or

http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
"no plane hit building 7!"

Don't forget the proof on the back of the 20 dollar bill.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05-17-02/pic04%5B1%5D.gif

Erendiox

Mar 15, 2007, 07:12 PM

I've seen a documentary on the subject and I have to say, as skeptical as I am, if even one of the many claims they made are true, the government has some explaining to do.

Cassie

Mar 15, 2007, 07:23 PM

I think Bush is a complete moron, but by no means evil.

You would have to on the list of top ten worst people of all time to do something like that.

9/11 was not an inside job.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 07:25 PM

Roswell, JFK, and now 911...
Think Occam's razor - One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

On a side note, I have seen a couple of those conspiracy tapes. Clearly the same lot that argues UN is about to invade US.

ITASOR

Mar 15, 2007, 07:32 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EMWn-bQYfSc

Is this it?

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 07:33 PM

I've seen a lot of those "documentaries". The evidence they provide is comical, and I have not come across one person (in real life) who was both intelligent and believed 9/11 to be an inside job. I do not think the people who create that FUD are intelligent...and I am basing that on the arguments they make in their docs.

It just goes to show you -- make a doc about something, and someone out there will believe you. :rolleyes:

I am a registered democrat.

The evidence they provide in the film I saw is based on physics, chemistry, and engineering. I do not know what was in the films you saw, but there was nothing comical about the evidence in the film I saw. Speaking of believing documentaries, the main reason you hold the position you do, is because you believe something you saw on TV.

Buildings that tall cannot "pancake collapse" in the eight to ten seconds that they did without the use of explosives. Also, Building 7 "fell", in textbook demolition fasion, by about 5:30 PM on 911 without ever having been majorly structurally damaged. People who question authority, especially those questioning the Bush administration, and who want the truth, are not unintelligent and are not unpatriotic. I consider people who believe everything they are told on TV to be unintelligent.

If you want to know what really happened, use the famous three words of advice from Watergate: "Follow the money". Just find out who made money, and who stood to gain from such a disaster.

People like you who throw the word liberal around ruin everything for the real liberals everywhere.

I am a liberal but I do NOT believe that 9/11 was an "inside job"

A true liberal, such as myself, would never describe the film I saw as liberal propeganda. It's neo-cons, Republicans, and right wingers that throw that word around incorrectly, gratuitously, and disparagingly. It isn't a matter of whether or not a person is liberal, it is a question of what is and isn't true. Physics doesn't lie, people do.

ErikCLDR

Mar 15, 2007, 07:34 PM

Ok... so how does this prove that our government is involved with this?

I am also a little confused. They first claim that heat would not have at all affected the steel structure, and they try to prove that by having some MIT guy say that the heat weakened the structure. So they are basically contradicting themselves the way I see it.

leekohler

Mar 15, 2007, 07:34 PM

Sorry, but this looks a little nuts to me as well. While I certainly think Bush ignored the warning signs, I don't think the administration set about to plant bombs either.

QuarterSwede

Mar 15, 2007, 07:35 PM

Roswell, JFK, and now 911...
Don't forget "the U.S. never landed on the moon" one.

viccles

Mar 15, 2007, 07:38 PM

Inside job my butt. Bush hasn't handled the situation well but inside job? pfft sure.

TheAnswer

Mar 15, 2007, 07:39 PM

The person who made it announces in the beginning how he is a conservative republican, and how he was outraged by the talk of 911 being an inside job. As he went on to prove this wrong (that it was set up), he came realized that the story that the public was told, not the story of the 911 set up, was false.

Oh please...don't tell me that people still fall for the "I was X, but I learned A,B and C and changed my position to Y" stuff. That's a standard BS line from whichever camp it comes out of. People just don't go around switching their Kool-aid of choice from Rockadile Red over to Ice Blue Island Twist, even over events as big as this.

MBHockey

Mar 15, 2007, 07:39 PM

I think Bush is a complete moron, but by no means evil.

You would have to on the list of top ten worst people of all time to do something like that.

9/11 was not an inside job.

Couldn't agree more.

QuarterSwede

Mar 15, 2007, 07:41 PM

Aperture

Mar 15, 2007, 07:41 PM

I quite enjoyed this one. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change)

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 08:29 PM

Oh please...don't tell me that people still fall for the "I was X, but I learned A,B and C and changed my position to Y" stuff. That's a standard BS line from whichever camp it comes out of. People just don't go around switching their Kool-aid of choice from Rockadile Red over to Ice Blue Island Twist, even over events as big as this.

Weather or not the guy is actually who he says he is, and is in the position that he says he is, is irrelevant. Evidence is evidence, and lying about how you are a right winger who changed positions, makes no difference.
And he never really changed his position, he is still a republican (assuming he is telling the truth), he just know now that the towers did not fall because of the plane.
yeah, uhh, nice thread.
For another look at this fantastic story try these sites

http://www.jewsdidwtc.com

or

http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
"no plane hit building 7!"

Don't forget the proof on the back of the 20 dollar bill.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05-17-02/pic04%5B1%5D.gif

Great argument :rolleyes: show me a 90 minute film with overwhelming evidence cooresponding to those websites and get back to me.

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 08:35 PM

Besides, why would the government want to start a war, supposedly, "on terror?"

They don't. Again, this comes back to what is said on TV, and what the Bush administration whats you to think. It is all about oil, my friend. Did Iraq have anything to do with 911? No. And don't act like if Iraq had not a drop of oil in its soil that we would be fighting a war there. This is such a complex topic, but I'll make it simple.

911 = A Reason to invade Afganistan
Saddam = A reason to invade Iraq (with no WMDs found)
Once in Iraq, we can take their oil, and claim that we are there to fight terrorists. We are actually doing this, but the issue goes deeper than that.

Iraq, 80 or so years ago used to be three countries that hated each other. Then the world decided to put those three together into one country and called it "Iraq". We then put in a puppet government which led to groups of extremists within Iraq (the original 3 groups that hated each other) to kill each other, which is pretty much what is going on today, except now each group has a fourth enemy, US.

zimv20

Mar 15, 2007, 08:38 PM

before the internet, it was more difficult to find info to debunk conspiracy theories.

and not suprisingly, before the internet, it was also more difficult to spread them.

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 08:41 PM

If it there was a real conspiracy theory,Oliver Stone would have already had at least one movie out about it..If this was controlled demolition,you mean to tell me that nobody would notice charges being placed throughout the structure at key points?Jet fuel burns at an extreme temp,esp in that quantity ( a fully loaded 767 departing from Boston on a transcon flight).Extreme heat causes steel to weaken and lose its integrity.Once one floor cuts loose,then you have two coming down,then three etc.A pancake effect.Which would explain why both planes hit high..Alot of the perpetrators of the attack,were well educated not only in flying jets,but also in structural design..If somebody wants to see a conspiracy,they can look at it in a way that will give them one.That applies to any event in history...

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 08:45 PM

SMM

Mar 15, 2007, 08:50 PM

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 08:53 PM

All I can say to what you just said is please watch the film. Every single statement you just made is observed, analyzed, and proven false in that movie... you literally took every chapter in that movie and typed it out for me.

So the planes flown into both towers were a diversion for the explosive charges? That's one helluva diversion. And I've read all about folding twenty dollar bills,numerology,symbolism etc....I despise the current administration as much as the next person,but I am not buying that they knowingly allowed that to happen...Now that's rich.As I said,where is Oliver Stone when you need him....In all honesty,I think that the events of 9/11 have more to do with that fact that we thought that were safe here in our "own backyard" and that it could never happen here..Complacency more than conspiracy...

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 08:53 PM

America is not run by 'the government' as we know it. There is a second government, made up of a group of the richest, most powerful men there are. Needless to say, membership is very exclusive. I once heard the number was seven, but it has been too many years since Poly Sci. These individuals have no sense of moral decency. To them, they have become God. They would sacrifice the lives of millions, if they found the outcome acceptable.

George does what they tell him to do. They made him. They control him. I suspect Cheney is their 'inside' man. He is there to make sure George does what he is told, and does not develop any stupid sentimental ideas.

There are many people who take a Pollyanna view when conspiracy theories are brought forth. On the other hand, many believe every theory as gospel. 911 has enough questions for me that I will be open-minded as new information becomes available.

That is somewhat true. Included in that group of supreme right wing nazis is Carl Rove... Cheney and the like. They do what it takes to do what they want. Even if that includes countless people in a war that shouldn't even exist.

Also, a lesser known fact that was interestingly enough not made public - More americans have now died in the war in Iraq than did in 911, which if you ask many folks, believe is why we are there.

So the planes flown into both towers were a diversion for the explosive charges? That's one helluva diversion. And I've read all about folding twenty dollar bills,numerology,symbolism etc....I despise the current administration as much as the next person,but I am not buying that they knowingly allowed that to happen...Now that's rich.As I said,where is Oliver Stone when you need him....

Just watch the movie. There is too much to talk about, nothing can do justice like watching the film. I think that the administration knew that there would be an attack, but they didn't know when. They waited for the planes to fly into the buildings and then set off the charges just to make them fall. You might ask why, but I don't think you understand the magnitude of the situations caused by those buildings falling. The nation became fear based, and our good ol' King George led our country into a war, telling that we would be safer if we did so. Another lesser known fact - we have been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. At least we had a reason to be in Germany...

jessica.

Mar 15, 2007, 08:54 PM

I am not on board with the whole conspiracy theory. We can start a war over anything, why bother with this?

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 09:01 PM

I am not on board with the whole conspiracy theory. We can start a war over anything, why bother with this?

There is more too it than that. Watch the film, you will realize that many things happened as a result of those towers falling beside a reason to start a war. An insurance claim of 7 billion dollars was made, building 7 was destroyed, which had lots of evidence against companys like Enron (ran by Bushs buddies) that potentially could put many of Georges friends behind bars. This thread is getting hard to keep up with. If you all watched the film, there would be a lot fewer questions. But keep asking, by all means.

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 09:03 PM

Just out of curiousity,who's behind the movie you posted the link to?What's their affiliation?Agenda?

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 09:09 PM

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 09:13 PM

I wouldn't be surprised considering that we are "fighting" our former buddies

Doesn't that always happen?We prop up guys (Shah of Iran,Saddam,various dictators etc),then they become our enemies? ;)

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 09:17 PM

Ironically the first novel I'm writing about touches tangentially on events of 9/11.

I don't subscribe to most conspiracy theories but I trust the scholars at www.911truth.org and www.loosechange911.com which addresses big questions in the prevailing theories that our govt. offers.

Honestly, I think that it a collab with insiders and some contract killers perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised considering that we are "fighting" our former buddies (Bin Laden was supplied arms and cash during the Afghan wars of the 80's).

Ironically, I still wonder about that big insurance payout and also the recovery of the gold before the bodies were taken. It's all about money I strongly attest to.

Thank you, someone who knows what thet are talking about. I suggest you watch this movie, because the money issues you discussed are talked about in the movie. I am glad there is someone here who isn't just speaking their mind without knowing anything on the topic.

Doesn't that always happen?We prop up guys (Shah of Iran,Saddam,various dictators etc),then they become our enemies? ;)

It seems so. That is what happened with Saddam... the US let him be in control if he did what he told us. And Lo and behold as soon as he stopped following the rules we made him look like a horrible human being. He did some messed up things, but he did them under US command as well.

Cassie

Mar 15, 2007, 09:17 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EMWn-bQYfSc

Is this it?

Wow, thanks for posting that.

I thought I was going to have to be bored on the hour and a half plane ride tomorrow. :)

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 09:22 PM

. I am glad there is someone here who isn't just speaking their mind without knowing anything on the topic.

Don't make a blanket statement.There are alot of people here that have opinions. Just because they aren't the same as yours,doesn't mean that they are less informed or less knowledgeable on the topic...

Music_Producer

Mar 15, 2007, 09:23 PM

People here don't understand that this is related to finance. Of course, when something of this scale happens.. there is just an outpouring of grief and anger.. and logic goes out the window.

It's only after things die down, that people sit down and wonder 'Why did this happen?' As with the millions of reasons out there.. I was struck by the fact that airline stocks were shorted on a massive scale before 911..

In the event that most of you don't know what shorting a stock is.. it means.. selling it at a price.. say for e.g. 25$ and then when the stock falls.. buying it at a lower price like $10 or so. The profit made on shorting these airline stocks was huge, but in the midst of Osama, terrorism, Afghanistan, etc.. nobody really pays attention to financial details.

Again, I am personally.. very, very intrigued by this. Who shorted those stocks? How did they know that this was going to happen?

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 09:27 PM

Don't forget "the U.S. never landed on the moon" one.
Right, how could I forget. :rolleyes: :)

Furthermore, for those of you that believe the current administration was behind 9/11.
Considering how well they have pulled off other plans (read e.g. Iraq, WoMD, New Orleans,...), do you really think it is plausible they could pull off a highly complex scheme, most likely, involving several hundreds of people without anyone leaking to the press??
Or just consider how likely it is, that the only ones with the entire truth are these online "private researchers"??
Come on people. Occam's razor.

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 09:33 PM

johnmartin78

Mar 15, 2007, 09:34 PM

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 09:36 PM

Ironically, I still wonder about that big insurance payout and also the recovery of the gold before the bodies were taken. It's all about money I strongly attest to.

Larry Silverstein had a $7B insurance policy on his gigantic, epic, center of commerce. Why is that so hard to imagine? How much do you think it would cost to redesign and rebuild such a structure? 50 bucks?

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 09:37 PM

It's funny to me how the Government can't manage to cover up things like President having sex with an intern,or some low level members of the Nixon administration breaking into a hotel room.Yet people will believe they can cover up 911,Kennedy assassination,Moon landing conspiracies.

Right on..Even some of my ultra left wing friends in the People's Republic of Cambridge aren't buying into the numerous conspiracy theories on 9/11..If you want to look back on history,you could formulate a conspiracy theory on just about anything..If you wanted to...

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 09:38 PM

It's funny to me how the Government can't manage to cover up things like President having sex with an intern,or some low level members of the Nixon administration breaking into a hotel room.Yet people will believe they can cover up 911,Kennedy assassination,Moon landing conspiracies.

LOL, exactly! Do you have any idea how many people it would take to plan and execute an operation like this? Probably several hundred at a bare minimum. And NOT ONE of them ever had a pang of conscious, or a desire to get fabulously wealthy and famous by selling his story? To say nothing of the thousands of tiny little details that could wreck the whole operation if even one came to light that all had to go flawlessly for this to work. Come on.

mrkramer

Mar 15, 2007, 09:49 PM

As I said,where is Oliver Stone when you need him....

Didn't you here about this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%28film%29)?

I don't think that our government would be able to pull off something like that without it getting leaked.

FF_productions

Mar 15, 2007, 09:51 PM

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 09:52 PM

Didn't you here about this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_%28film%29)?

I don't think that our government would be able to pull off something like that without it getting leaked.

No,I didn't..I was busy debunking the Santa Claus/Easter Bunny conspiracy theories...

FF_productions

Mar 15, 2007, 09:52 PM

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 09:55 PM

sure we didn't land on the moon

So Cape Kennedy is just one very expensive Disneyland for Sci-Fi geeks?:confused:
Don't you think that is overdoing it a bit?

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 09:57 PM

sure we didn't land on the moon

Then where exactly were those pictures from then??:confused:

FF_productions

Mar 15, 2007, 09:57 PM

So Cape Kennedy is just one very expensive Disneyland for Sci-Fi geeks?:confused:
Don't you think that is overdoing it a bit?

Maybe.

johnmartin78

Mar 15, 2007, 10:02 PM

The Democrats are Hiding Osama Bin Laden inside Micheal Moore....

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:07 PM

Don't make a blanket statement.There are alot of people here that have opinions. Just because they aren't the same as yours,doesn't mean that they are less informed or less knowledgeable on the topic...

Well it's not really an opinion that is what actually happened...

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:10 PM

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 10:11 PM

Well it's not really an opinion that is what actually happened...

What is?The terrorist attack or the theory that the attack was a conspiracy of the gov't?

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 10:12 PM

Maybe.
Seriously???
Just consider how many people that had to be in on this hoax... for many years and over several administrations. Do you really think that anyone would dare to thinking about a stunt like that, considering considering how high the likelihood is that at least one would talk to the press and the implications for the responsible persons behind the plan if it came out?
Since this was during the cold war, just imagine the PR melt-down if the Russians somehow learned about this plan.
Strangely enough, not a word about the Apollo program being a hoax was heard from the former Soviet union. All claims are from amazingly informed "private researchers" with much better information channels than the KGB...:rolleyes:

You can see that it sounds slightly unlikely right?

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 10:13 PM

Well, it sure is easy to cover up when you own the media.
The Republicans "own" CNN,CBS,NBC,The New York Times,The Boston Globe, Hollywood??When did this happen???

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:15 PM

What is?The terrorist attack or the theory that the attack was a conspiracy of the gov't?

What happened is all the money that was recovered from the attacks, the gold, and all the stuff he mentioned. That is what I meant about what actually happened.

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 10:17 PM

As I said several posts back,who is the group/organization behind the movie that you posted the link to in the OP?

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:18 PM

The Republicans "own" CNN,CBS,NBC,The New York Times,The Boston Globe, Hollywood??When did this happen???

That is not quite what I meant. I get newsletters every day saying that the Bush administration is at it again trying to silence strong left voices in the media. An example is the attempt to cut off all funding to PBS, and other left leaning channels. Ok it was an overstatement, but Ill get into it later. So many things come into play, it is unbelievable...

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 10:18 PM

What happened is all the money that was recovered from the attacks, the gold, and all the stuff he mentioned. That is what I meant about what actually happened.

OK, we have understood your claims. Now we just wait eagerly for the proof... It is a serious accusation so you can prove your claims, right?

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:20 PM

As I said several posts back,who is the group/organization behind the movie that you posted the link to in the OP?

I didn't realize that question was for me when you asked that the first time. Who knows, I do not know who is behind it, most likely the guy in the introduction of the video. But either way, they put out some stong evidence.

OK, we have understood your claims. Now we just wait eagerly for the proof... It is a serious accusation so you can prove your claims, right?

Well, I can't prove the claims myself, but this thread was created to revolve around the movie. If you want proof, answers, evidence, and information, put 90 minutes aside and watch the video.

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 10:22 PM

That is not quite what I meant. I get newsletters every day saying that the Bush administration is at it again trying to silence strong left voices in the media. An example is the attempt to cut off all funding to PBS, and other left leaning channels. Ok it was an overstatement, but Ill get into it later. So many things come into play, it is unbelievable...

There are PLENTY of left wing media outlets out there (including many mainstream media/cable outlets) that would love to prove even one of the so called conspiracy theories to be true. Most of which operate freely w/o pressure.Cripes it's probably CNN's wet dream..

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:25 PM

There are PLENTY of left wing media outlets out there (including many mainstream media/cable outlets) that would love to prove even one of the so called conspiracy theories to be true. Most of which operate freely w/o pressure.Cripes it's probably CNN's wet dream..

Actually, if you were to watch the video, there was a station that interviewed a specialist on the topic (it might have been CNN, I don't remember) and as soon as he started discussing and falsifying the story of 911 (he barely got a sentence in) about how the fires were not nearly hot enough to cause the building to collapse... and he was quickly cut off and told to leave.

johnmartin78

Mar 15, 2007, 10:28 PM

The vast majority of the media outlets are on the left.As well as most of hollywood.They are Scientologists too,just putting that out there.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 10:36 PM

Well, I can't prove the claims myself, but this thread was created to revolve around the movie. If you want proof, answers, evidence, and information, put 90 minutes aside and watch the video.
First of all, I have already wasted those 90 minutes of my life once a couple of months ago. The idea that government sent a cruise missile at Pentagon after they landed the plane and executed is insane to put it mildly.
The problem here is that you just take everything that is said in the video for true. If you instead have said: Hey, take a look at this video and let us discuss it, I would have been ok about it.
But as it is now you make these claims, hence I want you to prove your claims. As easy at that.
And please don't try to convince me that the video has any iota of proof in it. Every journalist on the planet would be all over it if there was any truth behind it. Heck, it would be a sure Pulitzer. Again Occams razor.
Finally, I suggest you try to read materials with a bit more critical eye, particularly stuff you find on the net.

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 10:38 PM

Well I always consider the source of any story,movie,documentary etc. before I even consider it. I am supposed to take the word of somebody somewhere on the internet (don't know their agenda, political affiliation etc) as a credible source?Now that's a good one.Judging by their storefront,it is strongly left leaning.Not to mention that it's a Go Daddy secure website,lol..Yeah,that's a real credible,top notch outfit. Oh yeah,one more thing..Any idea where the money generated from the storefront is going?

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 10:44 PM

pseudobrit

Mar 15, 2007, 10:44 PM

If you pause it and frame advance around 13:47 into the documentary the word "gullible" flashes on the screen.

Check it out.

fotografica

Mar 15, 2007, 10:47 PM

This is not a left vs right issue. It is about objectivity, checking your sources, flawed argumentation, and sound scientific protocols.

That was my point tho..How can a site with a strong one sided tendency produce an objective documentary/story?

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 10:57 PM

First of all, I have already wasted those 90 minutes of my life once a couple of months ago. The idea that government sent a cruise missile at Pentagon after they landed the plane and executed is insane to put it mildly.
The problem here is that you just take everything that is said in the video for true. If you instead have said: Hey, take a look at this video and let us discuss it, I would have been ok about it.
But as it is now you make these claims, hence I want you to prove your claims. As easy at that.
And please don't try to convince me that the video has any iota of proof in it. Every journalist on the planet would be all over it if there was any truth behind it. Heck, it would be a sure Pulitzer. Again Occams razor.
Finally, I suggest you try to read materials with a bit more critical eye, particularly stuff you find on the net.

Well, my uncle is much more into this than I am, as well as my father, and they have both done their research and just about all of it holds up to be true. I can ask to see what he found if you would like.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 11:00 PM

That was my point tho..How can a site with a strong one sided tendency produce an objective documentary/story?
Of course they can. They don't do it, but they could in theory.
That is what you do in science all day long; you look at a problem and try to analyze it though established scientific protocols. Sometimes it comes out the way you like it, other times you get an answer you didn't expect or want.
Good scientific protocol is letting the facts do the talking for you, without any spinning, regardless what the facts tell you. Any transgression from this rule should be kept in the fortune telling tent at the carnival.

xsedrinam

Mar 15, 2007, 11:02 PM

Sometimes people is dumber 'n chickens.

pseudobrit

Mar 15, 2007, 11:02 PM

Well, my uncle is much more into this than I am, as well as my father, and they have both done their research and just about all of it holds up to be true. I can ask to see what he found if you would like.

My brother (in the military) helped clean up the Pentagon. He waded through the Jet A-soaked debris.

But I guess all that eyewitness testimony and hundreds of video cameras capturing the obvious will just never hold up against your uncle's internet research.

:rolleyes:

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 11:07 PM

I try not to think that 9/11 was an inside job. Our country allowing thousands of innocent people to die is ridiculous.

Sure the government killed JFK (A very interesting topic to discuss, I've done lots of research on it), sure we didn't land on the moon, but I refuse to believe 9/11 was an inside job.

That's so hilarious that you think that our government cares about the people. Let's put it this way. I work for the government and I would like to laugh that those who truly believe that this is befinicent [sic] position. Ironically we just try to provide services at the lowest possible cost regardless of output.

Hmm... Let's see. Katrina was an example where the government deliberately put in lousy quality pumps and makeshift levees. Tons of people displaced and many are dead due to belated warnings.

Wow, I can't believe that so many people are this naive. I am a rather cynical Mac user who doesn't even trust Apple completely.

About the illuminati [sic] stuff, I know about it especially since I went to Yale. I won't disclose too much about what I know but it is bigger than what you think. And note that Kerry and Bush are man of the same coin. Rich coins aren't the only things ringing from their ears.

BTW, I'm not a liberal or conservative. I don't care honestly. I only care about inquiring from a skeptical mind and I don't trust the media or print necessarily I like to assume the worst of people actually because often I'm correct most of the time.

9/11 was not a complete inside job. Again, I really do believe that it is a combination of people inside the govt (power-hungry admin) plus some outside contractors to do the dirty work of murder. Being a New Yorker firsthand, I do know that I like to dig deep like Sam Spade does in the novels.

Thomas Veil

Mar 15, 2007, 11:09 PM

The evidence they provide in the film I saw is based on physics, chemistry, and engineering.Look, I've no doubt of your sincerity, but we've done this topic here a couple of times already, and few of us have been convinced.

I was ready to give credence to some of the claims of the "experts" in films like the one you're discussing, but other physicists, chemists and engineers have countered those experts. The final straw for me was the claim that there was a bomb strapped under one of the airplanes that hit the World Trade Center, when careful examination of the photographic "evidence" showed that these "experts" were pointing out the landing gear, which was semi-deployed.

Here, I'll even point out where this has been discussed before: here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=192512) and here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=181193)... and probably other places as well.

Again, no offense, but seeing this topic yet again makes me long for the days of the "When are the Powerbook G5s coming out?" and "How do I become a mod?" threads. :D

I hate Bush as much as the next guy, and I do think he's evil. Just not that evil.

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 11:12 PM

The Republicans "own" CNN,CBS,NBC,The New York Times,The Boston Globe, Hollywood??When did this happen???

Again folks, geewhiz, it's not about Republicans versus Democrats on this issue honestly. It's all about power and money. In fact, I think that both parties are to blame for much of oil grubbing.

The culture is at stake here honestly. I see that it doesn't matter what party label you are when you have tons of money. People behave the same whenever that carrot goes down and they run to bite.

Seriously I tend to believe that there is something sinister like a Don Delillo novel. It isn't pretty but the media in general is not reliable whether leftist or rightist.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 11:14 PM

Well, my uncle is much more into this than I am, as well as my father, and they have both done their research and just about all of it holds up to be true. I can ask to see what he found if you would like.
If I were you, I would ask them about their sources. Where did they get their information. How credible are their sources. How likely are their theory, considering that any major cover-up from the government is like instant Pulitzer price for the journalist breaking the story, plus a couple of extremely lucrative book deals.

Let me give you another example. There is a price for $1,000,000 to the first person that can prove he/she has ESP in a scientific controlled environment. It has been out there for years. No one yet has claimed the money. Still, it is very easy to find people claiming they have different types of Extra-sensory perception.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? ;)

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 11:16 PM

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 11:21 PM

For me politics is easy to argue but science is more difficult to impugn:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

For me, a rather convincing article.

Of course, 2 planes <> 3 buildings down. The math doesn't seem to jive very well with this calculation.

Being "a New Yorker firsthand", I'm sure you are aware that the buildings in that complex were awfully close together, and that the collapse of TWO of the largest buildings in the world in close proximity to a third is quite likely to be more than a little destabilizing to the structure of that building, dontcha think?

Sun Baked

Mar 15, 2007, 11:21 PM

Look, I've no doubt of your sincerity, but we've done this topic here a couple of times already, and few of us have been convinced.

Yes, I seem to trust the engineers that designed the Towers than experts with a political agenda.

If anything was silly or strange, they would have found it -- and they were surprised that the Tower stood so long after such a large strike and so much of the critical exterior supports were taken out.

mrkramer

Mar 15, 2007, 11:22 PM

It appears to work for Apple :p

Well maybe steve is just more competent than Bush.

yojitani

Mar 15, 2007, 11:24 PM

CNN is left leaning :eek: ? Goes to show how far to the right the US has shifted...

ON topic: I've had a few students cover this topic before. In the end, all of them ended up discounting the conspiracy theories, even those who at first were convinced of some theories. Frankly, I don't know how much it would matter if 9/11 was an inside job. It wouldn't change anything that's happened as a result. Moreover, even if there were conclusive evidence of something sinister, the worst that would happen is a couple of bums would end up in jail.

In other words, why waste your time on something like this? If your worried about fabricated evidence in action, why not dedicate your resources to the 8 Black Panthers being tried over falsified evidence and testimony acquired through torture by the New Orleans police dept?

YT

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 11:28 PM

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 11:31 PM

...even if there were conclusive evidence of something sinister, the worst that would happen is a couple of bums would end up in jail.

Are you kidding? If there was evidence that the government was actively involved in this sort of thing it would probably be the biggest scandal in US (or even world) history. The entire government would be brought down by something like this. A couple bums in jail? Try several dozen (at least) executed for treason.

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 11:36 PM

Are you kidding? If there was evidence that the government was actively involved in this sort of thing it would probably be the biggest scandal in US (or even world) history. The entire government would be brought down by something like this. A couple bums in jail? Try several dozen (at least) executed for treason.

Nah, that's not really the result honestly. Think more like a collapse on the scale of the Roman Empire during 476 AD. That's more realistic.

Or the end of Troy VIIa or b perhaps?

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 11:36 PM

Nope, I consulted with my dad who is a well-trained physicist and the building collapsed way too quickly to be destabilized that fast. In fact, I doubt that the WTC 7 was built like a pile of ----bricks. It's very strong architecture. Even the seismograph showed that the reverb from the WTC1 and WTC2 couldn't have caused 7 to directly fall.

There's something fishy about the whole thing. But more on that in my debut novel.

Unless your dad was a structural engineer who visited and had access to hard evidence at the actual site, his "analysis" is no better than any high-school physics student's. So, is he an architect? Structural engineer? Materials engineer? Fire marshall? Chemical engineer? Or a guy with internet access and maybe a physics degree?

Sorry to be harsh, but don't expect your book to sell too well.

Zwhaler

Mar 15, 2007, 11:42 PM

LOL, exactly! Do you have any idea how many people it would take to plan and execute an operation like this? Probably several hundred at a bare minimum. And NOT ONE of them ever had a pang of conscious, or a desire to get fabulously wealthy and famous by selling his story? To say nothing of the thousands of tiny little details that could wreck the whole operation if even one came to light that all had to go flawlessly for this to work. Come on.

The movie indicates it probably did involve many, many people. They did have pangs of conscious, but telling about it won't get them fabulously wealthy and famous, it will get them behind bars, or into an electric chair. Many details did come to light. The squibs, the security camera shutdowns, the removal of the bomb sniffing dogs, the unexplained power outages, the unexplained drilling and concrete dust in people's offices in the days prior to 911. There were the explosions witnessed, heard, and recorded, of the detonation bombs before the planes struck. Pulling something like this off couldn't be done flawlessly, and it wasn't.

The vast majority of the media outlets are on the left.As well as most of hollywood.They are Scientologists too,just putting that out there.

It's interesting the way right-leaning people in this country genuinely believe the media is left, and left-leaning people genuinely believe the media is right. It goes to show how we see what want to see and hear what we want to hear.

First of all, I have already wasted those 90 minutes of my life once a couple of months ago. The idea that government sent a cruise missile at Pentagon after they landed the plane and executed is insane to put it mildly.
The problem here is that you just take everything that is said in the video for true. If you instead have said: Hey, take a look at this video and let us discuss it, I would have been ok about it.
But as it is now you make these claims, hence I want you to prove your claims. As easy at that.
And please don't try to convince me that the video has any iota of proof in it. Every journalist on the planet would be all over it if there was any truth behind it. Heck, it would be a sure Pulitzer. Again Occams razor.
Finally, I suggest you try to read materials with a bit more critical eye, particularly stuff you find on the net.

First of all, that Pentagon film is an entirely different video than the one we are talking about... the pentagon isn't even in this movie. Also, if I say that in 1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and you don't believe it, just because I personally made the claim based on my belief that it's true, doesn't mean that if you don't believe me, I personally have to prove it to you. You are going to believe what you want, and I guess I will believe what I find compelling. It can make for good discussion, and the search for truth always involves such discussion. That is why I like this forum. I don't mean any offense.

That was my point tho..How can a site with a strong one sided tendency produce an objective documentary/story?

When Albert Einstein was developing the theory of relativity, before the world had ever heard of or even conceived of relativity, while it was still a work in progress, sure, he had a strongly one-sided tendency, but that didn't mean he was wrong or crazy. Before anyone knows you are right, sure, you appear crazy, and certainly strongly one sided in your quest.

princealfie

Mar 15, 2007, 11:42 PM

Unless your dad was a structural engineer who visited and had access to hard evidence at the actual site, his "analysis" is no better than any high-school physics student's. So, is he an architect? Structural engineer? Materials engineer? Fire marshall? Chemical engineer? Or a guy with internet access and maybe a physics degree?

Sorry to be harsh, but don't expect your book to sell too well.

I don't care how my book sells honestly. It is written from the heart and that's it.

Of course, my dad isn't a structural engineer but this is basic physics in many ways. Remember Ockham's razor. Don't complicate things more than they need to be.

Oh, sorry, I must have impugned on all those dudes who burned 6 years for that fabled Ph.D. in engineering. Oops.

And by the way, my dad still uses dial-up and doesn't really use the internet much at all. He knows physics very well :) mostly in particle physics.

Cool beans, I'm outta here. Got better things to think about (no need to argue since I know what I know) like sticking it with designing my new Hackintosh :D

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 15, 2007, 11:48 PM

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 11:51 PM

...It goes to show how we see what want to see and hear what we want to hear....

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear.

DTphonehome

Mar 15, 2007, 11:53 PM

Finally, someone hooking up his brain. I thought I was in the twilight zone for a while...

Every time I get into a situation/conversation like this, and I think to myself "wow, there sure a lot of stupid, gullible people in this world", and I start to feel sad, I then say to myself "you know, that just makes it easier for me to get ahead"! :D

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 16, 2007, 12:00 AM

First of all, that Pentagon film is an entirely different video than the one we are talking about... the pentagon isn't even in this movie. Also, if I say that in 1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and you don't believe it, just because I personally made the claim based on my belief that it's true, doesn't mean that if you don't believe me, I personally have to prove it to you. You are going to believe what you want, and I guess I will believe what I find compelling. It can make for good discussion, and the search for truth always involves such discussion. That is why I like this forum. I don't mean any offense.
Ok, so I haven't seen every conspiracy video out there. Furthermore, I never claimed man didn't go to the moon, the opposite in fact.

You are free to believe whatever you want. But it is truly a sad day for science when people tend to have bigger trust in charlatans than in scientists.
In order to have a meaningful discussion about anything, there has to be some minimum agreement about basic logic. Since, we obviously don't have that, I really can't see how we can come to any sort of conclusion.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 12:01 AM

I have met some of these conspiracy theory whack jobs and they may sound smart at first but the more you listen to them you realize they are just nuts. They throw logic out the window to believe what they want. Yes the government covers stuff up but this is ridiculous.:rolleyes:

pseudobrit

Mar 16, 2007, 12:03 AM

Of course, my dad isn't a structural engineer but this is basic physics in many ways. Remember Ockham's razor. Don't complicate things more than they need to be.

No ****ing ****.

Terrorists hijack planes, fly them into buildings, buildings collapse.

-or-

Government institutes huge conspiracy attack on its own people using various explosive charges, cruise missiles, disguised attack aircraft as passenger jets, adds huge flamethrowers to the front of the planes or some ****, murders hundreds of airline passengers on the ground to provide the cover story. Government puts this plan into place on a sunny morning in the middle of New York City and in Washington, D.C. where plenty of people, many of them with cameras are watching and recording. They also wait until news crews are on location and filming until they fake attack the second tower to maximise videographic and photographic exposure of their fraud.

I can see how Occam's razor supports your theory.

oober_freak

Mar 16, 2007, 12:31 AM

Saddam = A reason to invade Iraq (with no WMDs found)
Once in Iraq, we can take their oil

Whilst I believe that the Iraq invasion was wrong, I do not believe that they went there just for the oil.

I suggest you read this:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Columnists/Swaminathan_A_Aiyar/It_wasnt_all_about_oil/articleshow/1746624.cms

TheAnswer

Mar 16, 2007, 12:37 AM

I suggest you read this:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Columnists/Swaminathan_A_Aiyar/It_wasnt_all_about_oil/articleshow/1746624.cms

An opinion in The Times of India? Please tell me you have better sources than the subcontinent's reactionary ragsheet.

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 12:51 AM

Being "a New Yorker firsthand", I'm sure you are aware that the buildings in that complex were awfully close together, and that the collapse of TWO of the largest buildings in the world in close proximity to a third is quite likely to be more than a little destabilizing to the structure of that building, dontcha think?

Buildings three, four, five, and six were closer, hit harder with debris, and were still standing. Building seven was much farther away, sustained almost no damage, and mysteriously imploded into a perfect detonation-style collapse for no appearant reason at about 5:30 PM, on 911. Make what you want of it.

Yes, I seem to trust the engineers that designed the Towers than experts with a political agenda.

If anything was silly or strange, they would have found it -- and they were surprised that the Tower stood so long after such a large strike and so much of the critical exterior supports were taken out.

Quite the opposite. The buildings were made and designed to take a bigger impact than that of 911, burn for days, and still stand. What surprised everyone was not how long they stood, but how quickly and perfectly they fell, especially the core beams.

Ok, so I haven't seen every conspiracy video out there. Furthermore, I never claimed man didn't go to the moon, the opposite in fact.

You are free to believe whatever you want. But it is truly a sad day for science when people tend to have bigger trust in charlatans than in scientists.
In order to have a meaningful discussion about anything, there has to be some minimum agreement about basic logic. Since, we obviously don't have that, I really can't see how we can come to any sort of conclusion.

I didn't claim you saw every video. You claimed you saw one that you in fact have not yet seen. Also, I never said that you claimed man didn't go to the moon. You're right I really don't see how we can come to any sort of a conclusion when you intrepret what I said the way you did. Charlatans think that a 110 story building can "pancake collapse" in 10 seconds without explosive detonations in the lower floors. Scientists know for a fact that such a collapse would take 96 seconds. So we agree, I trust scientists much more than charletans.

oober_freak

Mar 16, 2007, 12:58 AM

An opinion in The Times of India? Please tell me you have better sources than the subcontinent's reactionary ragsheet.

That guy was the editor of one of Asia's most respected financial news papers for a long time. He is not a politician looking out for votes, he is not some journalist who doesn't know where his next penny is coming from; he is an expert of economics and finance. http://www.cato.org/people/aiyar.html

You may consider TOI as a 'ragsheet', but a lot of people, who actually read the newspaper do not consider it so. Get out of that 'western' media is the only media mindset. There are news channels and papers elsewhere that provide accurate and unbiased news to the people who watch them.

It wasn't an opinion, either. What SAA stated were facts. America hasn't got any significant amount oil out of Iraq, yet.

solvs

Mar 16, 2007, 03:29 AM

I think there are some legitimate questions to be raised that should be answered, but not like this. There's plenty already there with massive screw ups, incompetence, and selfish greed that helped what happened happen. As well as a bunch of frustrated, desperate, pissed off extremists who felt this would be the best solution to what they feel is being done to them.

Plus, it scares the bejeezus out of me to even think this would have been possible by our gov... I mean, they're bad enough when they're incompetent.

takao

Mar 16, 2007, 06:55 AM

last time i checked every 911 was an inside job at Porsche

princealfie

Mar 16, 2007, 08:11 AM

No ****ing ****.

Terrorists hijack planes, fly them into buildings, buildings collapse.

-or-

Government institutes huge conspiracy attack on its own people using various explosive charges, cruise missiles, disguised attack aircraft as passenger jets, adds huge flamethrowers to the front of the planes or some ****, murders hundreds of airline passengers on the ground to provide the cover story. Government puts this plan into place on a sunny morning in the middle of New York City and in Washington, D.C. where plenty of people, many of them with cameras are watching and recording. They also wait until news crews are on location and filming until they fake attack the second tower to maximise videographic and photographic exposure of their fraud.

I can see how Occam's razor supports your theory.

Hmm... Ockham razor seem to be more simple like this.

BIG OIL COMPANIES + LOTS OF GOLD + WORLD TRADE INSURANCE + SUPPRESSION WITH MISINFORMATION + VOLATILE WORLD MARKETS + LOW RISK MANAGEMENT = DEAD 3000 (approximately) + POLITICAL MESS.

Basic algebra eh? :p

Swarmlord

Mar 16, 2007, 09:08 AM

<snip>

911 = A Reason to invade Afganistan
Saddam = A reason to invade Iraq (with no WMDs found)
Once in Iraq, we can take their oil, and claim that we are there to fight terrorists. We are actually doing this, but the issue goes deeper than that.

<snip>

I wish we'd hurry up and start taking all that oil like you lefty conspiracy theorists keep suggesting we're doing. Somebody keeps stupidly sending them money for it!

princealfie

Mar 16, 2007, 09:29 AM

I wish we'd hurry up and start taking all that oil like you lefty conspiracy theorists keep suggesting we're doing. Somebody keeps stupidly sending them money for it!

Certainly not me since I don't own a car. And I may never own one either.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 10:29 AM

I wish we'd hurry up and start taking all that oil like you lefty conspiracy theorists keep suggesting we're doing. Somebody keeps stupidly sending them money for it!

Hmm, funny that. Wasn't the oil supposed to pay for the war or at least the reconstruction? Halliburton can't even get that right. Oh wait- I'm sorry, there's more money to be made bilking American taxpayers through no-bid contracts courtesy of Darth Cheney. :rolleyes:

princealfie

Mar 16, 2007, 10:44 AM

Hmm, funny that. Wasn't the oil supposed to pay for the war or at least the reconstruction? Halliburton can't even get that right. Oh wait- I'm sorry, there's more money to be made bilking American taxpayers through no-bid contracts courtesy of Darth Cheney. :rolleyes:

That's right... the news has shifted to Karl Rove + Gonzalez + attorney firings as a diversionary tactic today.

Sun Baked

Mar 16, 2007, 11:02 AM

last time i checked every 911 was an inside job at Porsche

Seems if they rolled over some of their profits from 911, they can use the weather satellites to send a storm to New Orleans -- then blow up the dikes to get some cheap property for a future VW dealership.

TheAnswer

Mar 16, 2007, 11:31 AM

That guy was the editor of one of Asia's most respected financial news papers for a long time. He is not a politician looking out for votes, he is not some journalist who doesn't know where his next penny is coming from; he is an expert of economics and finance.

Where some see an expert on economics and finance, others see someone on the payroll of India's largest media conglomerate, a mad scientist aiding the World Bank in their new-world order quest to push their heels further into the backs of the proletariat, with an elder brother chest deep in the inner workings of the Indian government. Sounds about as likely to be trustworthy as any lackey for the right-wing media conglomerates in the U.S.

America hasn't got any significant amount oil out of Iraq, yet.

I can't say I'm surprised, given the administration's track record.

Now whether the Bush administration staged 9-11, at the behest of Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar and his World Bank cronies, in order to obtain oil in order to fulfill the desire for world domination is other story.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 16, 2007, 11:45 AM

Scientists know for a fact that such a collapse would take 96 seconds. So we agree, I trust scientists much more than charletans.
Show me your references.

SMM

Mar 16, 2007, 12:27 PM

And they're Jews, of course. Illuminati Jews.

No, I do not think they are Jewish. Rockerfeller and Hunt are members. Do not recall who the rest are. They do not maintain a high profile.

princealfie

Mar 16, 2007, 12:27 PM

Show me your references.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

oober_freak

Mar 16, 2007, 01:30 PM

Where some see an expert on economics and finance, others see someone on the payroll of India's largest media conglomerate, a mad scientist aiding the World Bank in their new-world order quest to push their heels further into the backs of the proletariat, with an elder brother chest deep in the inner workings of the Indian government. Sounds about as likely to be trustworthy as any lackey for the right-wing media conglomerates in the U.S.

Now whether the Bush administration staged 9-11, at the behest of Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar and his World Bank cronies, in order to obtain oil in order to fulfill the desire for world domination is other story.

I do not believe that the Bush administration staged 9-11. I think even you will agree with it. I know Bush and his gang (deliberately?) went horribly wrong with their Iraq plans. But, that is not my point.

My point is that your country does value the lives of its citizens. Your government went to Afghanistan and destroyed the Taliban. That to me was a fitting reply.

Compare this with the idiots in the Indian government. Our trains get bombed, our markets get bombed, our planes are hijacked. What does my Prime Minister do? He goes to meet the crazy dictator next door with a smile on his face and a rose in his hands, expecting that one day the other guy will stop sending people across the border.

Hell, even the security forces of a country like Bangladesh with exactly 213 guns in their armour kill our border security force personnel. Guess what the PM of my country does?

I don't for one moment say that the policies of the US are perfect. The Iraq war was an example of how countries are attacked for selfish means. But, at least the US has the balls to go out and defend its citizens.

As for SAA, I would suggest you read some of his previous articles. He has been critical of the US for the Iraq war. He is a very well respected economist here in India.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 16, 2007, 01:37 PM

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
This so called peer reviewed journal is an online journals. The article you are referring to is written by the main "editor". He claims to have a Ph.D. However, there is no affiliated university. His email address is HardEvidence@gmail.com.
Hardly what we in science call a serious email address.
In fact NONE of the other so-called Ph.D.s mention any affiliated universities.

I myself referee journals for one of Americas most prestigious journals. Trust me, when I say serious articles doesn't look like this. If you don't trust me, look for yourself online. There are tons of scientific papers out there.
ALL papers have an affiliated university. NO authors have a g-mail address.

Try to read what you find online with a slightly more critical eye.

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 01:39 PM

I do not believe that the Bush administration staged 9-11. I think even you will agree with it. But, the point is that your country does value the lives of its citizens. Your government went to Afghanistan and destroyed the Taliban. That to me was a fitting reply.In what way was carpet-bombing government troops inside Afghanistan and killing over 10,000 civilians to boot a fitting response? Do explain.

Compare this with the idiots in the Indian government. Our trains get bombed, our markets get bombed, our planes are hijacked. What does my Prime Minister do? He goes to meet the crazy dictator next door with a smile on his face and a rose in his hands, expecting that one day the other guy will stop sending people across the border.I expect you think he should start another war. Good plan.

shecky

Mar 16, 2007, 01:41 PM

Try to read what you find online with a slightly more critical eye.

correctamundo.

gullibility combined with delusions of grandeur and paranoia are powerful allies of the conspiracy theorist.

TheAnswer

Mar 16, 2007, 01:46 PM

correctamundo.

gullibility combined with delusions of grandeur and paranoia are powerful allies of the conspiracy theorist.

Like you, I have always suspected some vast conspiracy involving gullibility, delusion and paranoia...now if only we can find out who's behind it. :p

princealfie

Mar 16, 2007, 01:49 PM

This so called peer reviewed journal is an online journals. The article you are referring to is written by the main "editor". He claims to have a Ph.D. However, there is no affiliated university. His email address is HardEvidence@gmail.com.
Hardly what we in science call a serious email address.
In fact NONE of the other so-called Ph.D.s mention any affiliated universities.

I myself referee journals for one of Americas most prestigious journals. Trust me, when I say serious articles doesn't look like this. If you don't trust me, look for yourself online. There are tons of scientific papers out there.
ALL papers have an affiliated university. NO authors have a g-mail address.

Try to read what you find online with a slightly more critical eye.

Oh really. This is his CV.

Professor Steven Earl Jones
steve_jones.jpg (6094 bytes)
N269 ESC
Phone:
FAX:
E-mail:
801-378-2749
801-378-2265
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu

Full Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
BIOGRAPHICAL:

Birthdate: 25 March 1949
Citizenship: USA
Telephone: (801) 378-2749
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Graduated from Bellevue High School, Bellevue, Washington, with 4.0 scholastic average (A=4.0) in 1967.

B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship.

Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978).

Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University.

Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, EG & G Idaho, Idaho Falls, 1979-1985 (Senior Engineering Specialist).

Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion 1982-1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

Spokesman for LAMPF Experiment #727 and co-spokesman for LAMPF Experiments #963 and #1151 (1982 - 1993).

Collaborator in several other experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, Canada), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory (Oxford, U.K.), and Kamioka, Japan.

Associate Director, Brigham Young University Center for Fusion Studies, 1989-1994

Search for fusion in condensed matter and deuterium, research for U.S. Department of Energy (May 1986 - December 1991) and for the Electric Power Research Institute (April 1990-June 1993).
AWARDS

David O. McKay Scholarship at Brigham Young University, 1968
National Merit Scholar, 1968
Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship at Vanderbilt
University, 1973-1978
Outstanding Young Scholar Award (BYU), 1989
Best of What's New for 1989 (Popular Science), 1989
Creativity Prize (Japanese Creativity Society), 1989
BYU Young Scholar Award (BYU), 1990
Annual Lecturer BYU Chapter of Sigma Xi (1990-1991)

He went to the Ph.D. program same as my undergrad education (english lit)

So there, you got the background info on the dude now.

oober_freak

Mar 16, 2007, 01:57 PM

In what way was carpet-bombing government troops inside Afghanistan and killing over 10,000 civilians to boot a fitting response? Do explain.

I agree that the loss of civilian lives was indeed unfortunate. I understand how the people of Afghanistan feel. They must really be fed up with decades of war. I have heard horror tales from Afghanis, some of whom had taken refuge in India. Whilst I do not support killing of civilians, I do support the killing of the fanatics who were a part of the Taliban regime.

I know that many civilians would have been killed, sometimes just because of the carelessness of a few people, but in the era of guerilla warfare, we have to accept the fact that civilians will lose their lives.

I expect you think he should start another war. Good plan.

I do not support a war. That will be disastrous for our economy. But, I do expect some action from my government. I do expect them to destroy terrorist camps in PoK. I do expect the party in power to at least bring back the anti-terror legislation that they had scrapped for the appeasement of a few sections of the society. Otherwise, we will see more IC 814s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_814) being hijacked, and we will see more Maulana Masood Azhars and Omar Saeed Sheikhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh) being traded for hostages, and these Omar Saeed Sheikhs will kill some more Daniel Pearls, and transfer some more money to fund some more terrorist attacks.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 16, 2007, 02:07 PM

So there, you got the background info on the dude now.
Much better... His full CV can be found here (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm). His last article serious was in 1998. I am sure his university is thrilled. Instead of trying to do some serious work he instead create an online journal where he post his ranting that wont make it to a real journal.

Science is a tough business, publish or perish. This guy perished years ago.

Moreover, you forgot to mention his research interests:

Sonoluminescence
Solar Cooking
Archaeometry
Evidence for Christ's Visit in America

I rest my case.

Sun Baked

Mar 16, 2007, 03:05 PM

His last article serious was in 1998. I am sure his university is thrilled.

He got the mutual boot, and is now early retired so he can spend more time with research.

The report by the fed looks like it had quite a few errors, so I think Leslie Robertson who says the plane considered was a Boeing 707 at 200mph.

princealfie

Mar 16, 2007, 03:24 PM

He got the mutual boot, and is now early retired so he can spend more time with research.

The report by the fed looks like it had quite a few errors, so I think Leslie Robertson who says the plane considered was a Boeing 707 at 200mph.

Ooopss... looks like the feds got cooking on plane speed numeros eh?

Okay, I do want some blu-ray discs someday? :D

johnmartin78

Mar 16, 2007, 05:34 PM

I can't believe this is even a debate,the fact that so many people believe these stories makes me embarrassed.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 16, 2007, 05:42 PM

I can't believe this is even a debate,the fact that so many people believe these stories makes me embarrassed.
tell me about it...:(

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 05:49 PM

I can't believe this is even a debate,the fact that so many people believe these stories makes me embarrassed.That goes both ways...

pseudobrit

Mar 16, 2007, 06:02 PM

That goes both ways...

Only one end of this debate is crazy.

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 06:13 PM

Only one end of this debate is crazy.

How so? Please give me proof (not any crap from the media) that makes all the claims about the towers falling because of planes true.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 16, 2007, 08:50 PM

How so? Please give me proof (not any crap from the media) that makes all the claims about the towers falling because of planes true.
How about applying some logic? ;)

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 09:06 PM

It slices it dices only $19.95 and it will wash your car.... buy now we only have 10 left in stock.....

My point is people will buy anything with the right marketing.

Maybe I should sell a hard hat for when the sky falls and some tin foil to keep the martians away.http://deephousepage.com/smilies/scratchchin.gif

mrkramer

Mar 16, 2007, 09:39 PM

For all the people who actually belive the conspericy theories, read this (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html) article.

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 10:24 PM

How about applying some logic? ;)

Logic says that a 110 story building cannot collapse in 10 seconds without being detonated sequentially at the lower levels as it collapses. Without the detonations, a normal, gravity, structural-failure type collapse would take nearly 100 seconds. The proof is, that when a building collapses onto its own lower layers, the lower layers resist the collapse long enough to add the additional 90 seconds mentioned above.

The top of that tower was at ground level in exactly as long as it takes for a billiard ball, dropped into thin air, to freefall the same distance. Therefore, as the building collapsed, the top was not hitting, and crushing, anything below it because the layers below were being blown away by explosives as the building fell. These explosions were heard by many people, and were recorded on tape. Many tapes, from different people, and from different angles also show "squibs" shooting out of the sides of the building ahead of the collapse itself. It was a textbook demolition, plain and simple.

The collapse(s) of many different buildings around the world both by careful demolition, as well as when there is a strucural failure or a natural disaster have been taped, and the WTC is an example of a superb demolition job. Have a good at the federal building that Timothy McVey bombed in Oaklahoma City. Look at it really carefully. It took a far bigger hit relative to its size, and it never collapsed. Until I've heard what I said above refuted, I have made my case.

mrkramer

Mar 16, 2007, 10:40 PM

Many tapes, from different people, and from different angles also show "squibs" shooting out of the sides of the building ahead of the collapse itself.

If you would read the article that I linked to it explains that, but since i don't think that you will here is the explanation. As the building collapsed on itself, the air that was being forced out of the lower floors had to go somewhere so it went out to the sides carrying debris with it.

Also fuel from the planes went down the elevator shafts and ignited, which damaged the lower floors, and made then less resistant to the upper floors falling on them.

TheAnswer

Mar 16, 2007, 10:46 PM

...some tin foil to keep the martians away.

That only works if you overlook the fact that big aluminum (http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/home.asp) is already in bed with the Martians. Don't believe me, google "Alcoa Mars"....the plot thickens. :eek:

shecky

Mar 16, 2007, 10:52 PM

The proof is, that when a building collapses onto its own lower layers, the lower layers resist the collapse long enough to add the additional 90 seconds mentioned above.

where is this proof? show me. and your movie is not proof.

Thomas Veil

Mar 16, 2007, 10:58 PM

That only works if you overlook the fact that big aluminum (http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/home.asp) is already in bed with the Martians. Don't believe me, google "Alcoa Mars"....the plot thickens. :eek:Whatever the secret plot was, Ray Walston took it with him to his grave.

dsnort

Mar 16, 2007, 11:04 PM

Whatever the secret plot was, Ray Walston took it with him to his grave.

And Bill Bixby died young. I sense a conspiracy! Someone call Oliver Stone!!!:eek:

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 11:06 PM

where is this proof? show me. and your movie is not proof.

I'll make it simple for you.
Detonated building = 10 second collapse
Structural failure with jet fuel raging = 96 second collapse

FACT: It collapsed in 10 seconds. That is the proof! If it had collapsed in 96 seconds, and I would have said it was detonated, you would be arguing that with detonations it would have collapsed in 10 seconds, not 96. And you would be right... but it collapsed in 10 seconds!

You get your information from the TV, and put the burden of proof on me, and dismiss the scientists in my video. How about if I think your TV show is not proof, and your theories don't add up, and expect you to prove what you said to me? Please, prove to me that those buildings weren't detonated. Find one collapse of one building anywhere that proceeds at the pace of a free falling billiard ball that wasn't detonated. You, not I, have the explaining to do. I think we are done here.

mrkramer

Mar 16, 2007, 11:17 PM

I'll make it simple for you.
Detonated building = 10 second collapse
Structural failure with jet fuel raging = 96 second collapse

Could you provide a CREDIBLE source for that information. and for proof, look at the article that I linked to a few posts back, and I'll even post the link for you again http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 11:19 PM

I will read your article after I finish typing this. Do you know what my video is? It is not some random guy standing there preaching about how the whole thing is a hoax, it is a collection of what is already out there, and is a collection of scientists and a collection of evidence.

zap2

Mar 16, 2007, 11:19 PM

]You, not I, have the explaining to do.

NO...your trying to change someones mind, you have to explain your reasons, then people possible reconsider what they think

Zwhaler

Mar 16, 2007, 11:33 PM

NO...your trying to change someones mind, you have to explain your reasons, then people possible reconsider what they think

How much explaining do I need to do?? The buildings CANNOT have collapsed the way they did without the use of explosives. It simply cannot be done. And do not dismiss my video as lies, because if I searched the web for every single quote, interview, recording, video clip, and everything else in that video, I would find it! Nothing in this video was simply created, it is a collection of all the evidence that already exists.

I am not trying to change anybodys mind, I am BEGGING for a credible reason why those buildings fell the way they did. Sure, I can take every piece of evidence you throw at me and dismiss it, as everyone here has done to me. You people are taking everything I am telling you and saying "No, that does not count" while at the same time I can take a random article on the internet that you give to me and claim it as a lie just as much as you can to me with everything I give you. It is clear that nobody will believe what anybody else says, because if you take all the evidence given to you and dismiss it, then there is nothing left.

shecky

Mar 16, 2007, 11:55 PM

I'll make it simple for you.
Detonated building = 10 second collapse
Structural failure with jet fuel raging = 96 second collapse

how is you saying "96 second collapse" proof? its nothing. its you regurgitating something you saw on youtube.

i will make it really simple for you, and i will use small words also so my point is not missed: PROOVE to me that a structural failure with jet fuel raging takes 96 seconds to fall down. show me the proof by a qualified expert that a 110 story structure like this will take 96 seconds to fall down without explosives. don't tell me it does. don't say "they showed it on the video." don't say "i cannot be bothered to find the links but its out there is you want to find it." don't say "you are just a sheep falling for what the government is selling."

just proove it.

Sun Baked

Mar 16, 2007, 11:57 PM

That only works if you overlook the fact that big aluminum (http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/home.asp) is already in bed with the Martians. Don't believe me, google "Alcoa Mars"....the plot thickens. :eek:

Are you sure this all wasn't a bet between Lance Burton and David Copperfield, about how David Copperfield couldn't make the towers vanish for 10 years?

MacNut

Mar 17, 2007, 12:11 AM

First of all when was the last time you saw a 110 story sky scrapper imploded, I don't think one that size has ever been attempted so I don't know where this proof comes from in the first place.

latergator116

Mar 17, 2007, 12:35 AM

Here is a report that debunks some common 9/11 myths, if anyone is interested http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

SRSound

Mar 17, 2007, 12:46 AM

Zwhaler I just wanted to tell you how much I admire your consistent efforts to promote an alternate view of this event. I struggled trying to bring alternate view points to the minds of stubborn voters during the last two elections, and I know how frustrating it can be.

For everyone who is in doubt or at least unwilling to consider an alternate view, please take some time to watch the movie on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EMWn-bQYfSc). It is 90 minutes but very well composed and addresses all of the doubts you may have. It is not designed to convince you of who was behind it, but it certainly raises excellent questions about the science behind the demolition (especially to a skeptic like myself). Please watch.

shecky If you have any kind of scientific mind and desire scientific proof (or evidence, if there is such a thing), do take the time to watch the movie. I would love to know how your questions change...

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 12:51 AM

how is you saying "96 second collapse" proof? its nothing. its you regurgitating something you saw on youtube.

i will make it really simple for you, and i will use small words also so my point is not missed: PROOVE to me that a structural failure with jet fuel raging takes 96 seconds to fall down. show me the proof by a qualified expert that a 110 story structure like this will take 96 seconds to fall down without explosives. don't tell me it does. don't say "they showed it on the video." don't say "i cannot be bothered to find the links but its out there is you want to find it." don't say "you are just a sheep falling for what the government is selling."

just proove it.

You would have to personally be an engineer, and do the calculations yourself to understand the mathemetical proof for why a building that size cannot collapse fully from top to bottom in only 10 seconds without detonations helping the collapse. If anyone else does these calculations, you can say "that's BS". If they put their proof on the internet, then you simply call it "YouTube BS". You may not be an engineer, and I may not be an engineer, but there is a group of them out there with the brainpower to perform these calculations. They did the calculations, they came up with 96 seconds, and I believe them, and you don't. There is no link I can send you that you will not condemn, and claim "that's not proof, just proooove it!!"

Sending you a link that you then call "YouTube nonsense" will not work with you. Unless you want 15,000 pages of numbers on your screen that you can't understand, (and then will say is BS anyway), you will never have this "proof" that you want. Get it? If someone sent you the proof that you so crave, you would not understand it and dismiss it as BS.

How about this. You have no more proof in the true mathematical sense for your position, than I do for mine. My last observation is that I find it astounding and naive that so many people who get their information from the TV News, and surfing the web somehow believe that other people who get their information from the same sources are wrong and required to provide proof. You have a claim that you have not proved, I have a claim that I have not proved; yours is not automatically right. I could rightfully expect you not to "be a sheep", falling for what you see on TV, and demand that you PROVE to me what you think happened. I suggest you read: 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out (Griffin & Scott 2007). It is full of the type of proof by engineers and witnesses that I believe to be true. As I said above, you will probably react to this book (like everything else) by saying "Yeah... but proove it!" But that's cool. We're both gonna believe what we want to believe.

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 01:02 AM

Are you sure this all wasn't a bet between Lance Burton and David Copperfield, about how David Copperfield couldn't make the towers vanish for 10 years?

You know, you may be on to something...It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that Big Copper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copperfield_%28illusionist%29) is collaborating with the Martians and Alcoa.

princealfie

Mar 17, 2007, 01:06 AM

Actually television is so deceptive that it can dissuade us from common sense. Scary.

Sun Baked

Mar 17, 2007, 01:47 AM

You would have to personally be an engineer, and do the calculations yourself to understand the mathemetical proof for why a building that size cannot collapse fully from top to bottom in only 10 seconds without detonations helping the collapse. If anyone else does these calculations, you can say "that's BS". If they put their proof on the internet, then you simply call it "YouTube BS". You may not be an engineer, and I may not be an engineer, but there is a group of them out there with the brainpower to perform these calculations. They did the calculations, they came up with 96 seconds, and I believe them, and you don't. There is no link I can send you that you will not condemn, and claim "that's not proof, just proooove it!!"

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

The only problem I have with their 96 second mark is the acceleration curve looks too linear -- as if each floor were to accelerate an fall on its own.

Which cannot be the case.

While it won't accelerate as if in a vacuum, if you drop 20 floors of a huge building 10-12 feet onto another floor -- it'll slow down as it losses some energy.

Then you have 21 floors falling onto another floor, which will tend to slow down even less floor after floor as the total mass falling increases, the speed at impact increases, and the total kinetic energy behind the falling mass increases.

Basically, I'd probably see a curve similar to the billiard ball -- except slightly flatter at the top and getting nearer to 9.8m/sec^2 as the energy behind the total number of floors currently falling increases.

Of course -- I'm probably wrong and it isn't every floor that sucks energy. Probably more like every 38 feet (?) as it needs just enough energy to snap the main column section's bolts and knock them away from the floors they are tied to.

pseudobrit

Mar 17, 2007, 11:44 AM

How so? Please give me proof (not any crap from the media) that makes all the claims about the towers falling because of planes true.

"not any crap from the media"

Yeah, so that leaves us citing random *******s and bloggers on the internet.

Which works surprisingly well for your argument, which relies on a steady diet of assholish bloggers. I wonder why no decent journalist is backing this nonsense? I already know what your answer will be.

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 12:01 PM

I gave the video a go....first of the talking head republican only gives his first name and looks like an actor, I wish I had a better quality of the video because the guy on the street who starts "the official story"...something is fishy about the audio there. The "analysis" of the smoke by comparing it to a wood fire, when the WTC blaze was a lot more complex in terms of elements was unimpressive. The structure of the WTC as a "plane proof" mosquito net??...hmm...show me a load bearing mosquito net. Then the announcer said the 767 was a smaller aircraft than the 707. Looking at length and wingspan, I can tell this isn't true. If anyone has statistics on the actual weight of the craft as the hit the towers that would be interesting...I'd also be interested in innovations in aircraft construction that might have made the 767 materials lighter but stronger.

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 12:21 PM

Conspiracy theories are impervious to facts or logic, but here they are anyway:

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

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 17, 2007, 12:28 PM

shecky If you have any kind of scientific mind and desire scientific proof (or evidence, if there is such a thing), do take the time to watch the movie. I would love to know how your questions change...
.....I am in the twilight zone.

I will try not to be mean, but what shecky said is actually exactly how science is done. If you make a claim, you have to back it up by a proof. Not just say, he said, I heard, I watched this movie on iTube. A Proof
Seriously, don't tell people how science should be done if you don't have the slightest clue.

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 12:40 PM

Still working my way through the video...Narrator "Steel melts at 2750 degrees F, conditions only found in a blast furnace or when...."....BUT the critical temperature at which steel begins to fail as a structural material is around 1,010 degrees F...which is a considerably smaller number.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 12:54 PM

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

The only problem I have with their 96 second mark is the acceleration curve looks too linear -- as if each floor were to accelerate an fall on its own.

Which cannot be the case.

While it won't accelerate as if in a vacuum, if you drop 20 floors of a huge building 10-12 feet onto another floor -- it'll slow down as it losses some energy.

Then you have 21 floors falling onto another floor, which will tend to slow down even less floor after floor as the total mass falling increases, the speed at impact increases, and the total kinetic energy behind the falling mass increases.

Basically, I'd probably see a curve similar to the billiard ball -- except slightly flatter at the top and getting nearer to 9.8m/sec^2 as the energy behind the total number of floors currently falling increases.

Of course -- I'm probably wrong and it isn't every floor that sucks energy. Probably more like every 38 feet (?) as it needs just enough energy to snap the main column section's bolts and knock them away from the floors they are tied to.

Thanks for some great observations. Remember, I'm just trying to figure out what happened. Here are my thoughts on your comments.

If, as the building fell, the accumulated mass above the floor being crushed were to build up, and increase as the crushing continued, (increased kinetic energy), you are absolutely right. The acceleration curve of the collapse would not and could not be linear. But remember, at the instant of any given lower floor being crushed, the umpteen floors above it don't exist anymore, therefore, the impact on, say, the 16th floor by the debris slamming onto it, is no greater than the impact was that slammed onto, say, the 84th floor. As the 16th floor is being crushed, there is no more mass, or kinetic energy above it, than there was relative to the 84th floor when it was crushed. The one exception is the speed generated from gravity, which remember, has been repeatedly interrupted and slowed somewhat as each floor was hit, absorbed energy, and then collapsed.

In other words, while an absolutely linear collapse-acceleration curve is agreeably not 100% accurate, it is a lot closer to what a pancake collapse would look like, as opposed to the curve of a pure freefall, such as a bowling ball dropped into thin air. Even if 96 seconds is not completely accurate, (maybe it's 56, maybe it's 76, maybe it's 106), it sure isn't 10. Given that our two numbers are 10 seconds, (pure freefall), which is what actually happened, and any number up there above 50 seconds, (guestimated structural-failure, pancake collapse) the point is clearly made that it fell too fast.

Explosive charges allow a freefall acceleration curve by literally evacuating the resistance below the structure, sequentially and immediately ahead of the slowdown that would have occured if the lower floors were impacted (pancake collapse). This is very well documented by the many filmed detonation collapses we've all seen. Admittedly, no documented, filmed, structural collapse without the aid of detonations exist that I know of. Maybe that is because without detonations, buildings simply don't self collapse, even when engulfed in flames, for many hours. There was a high rise in Madrid, fully engulfed for 20 hours that is well documented, and it didn't fall over or collapse.

Thanks again for engaging in legitimate, thoughtful obervations, and not knee-jerk reacting as if what I am saying is threatening.

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 01:16 PM

Thanks again for engaging in legitimate, thoughtful obervations, and not knee-jerk reacting as if what I am saying is threatening.

No, just extremely depressing in its insistently counterfactual nature.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 01:16 PM

"not any crap from the media"

Yeah, so that leaves us citing random *******s and bloggers on the internet.

Which works surprisingly well for your argument, which relies on a steady diet of assholish bloggers. I wonder why no decent journalist is backing this nonsense? I already know what your answer will be.

I fully understand why someone could accept the offical story from the media. But remember, it was also widely reported, publicized, and touted, that ground zero, and the nearby vicinity were "safe" to go into and the air there "safe" to breathe within 72 hours of the collapse. People who believed this are now dying by the dozens, even hundreds. They got their information through our media, they believed it, and now they're paying the ultimate price.

My curiosity was piqued by the film 911 Mysteries, and the book 9/11 and the American Empire. What jumped out at me most was that the buildings appear to have collapsed far too quickly unless the collapses were aided by demolitions, and building 7 looks very much to me like it had no legitimate reason for ever collapsing at all. I am not threatened by the movie or the book, just curious. I have no vested interest in any given scenerio being the right one, but as a patriotic American, the truth is important to me. I am just dabbling around searching for it, and I sure don't believe everything I see and hear from our media. Hey, there's nothing wrong with a little dialog in a democracy.

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 02:06 PM

The "official story" was not created by the "media" but was the result of probably the most extensive and sophisticated forensic study of structural failure in history. If you take the trouble to follow the link I have provided, you can read and watch detailed descriptions of the failure sequence of the buildings and how and why they happened. You will also find a debunking of some of the more popular conspiracy theories.

The real tragedy of these conspiracy theories is that they tempt us to not learn or to unlearn the lessons of 9/11, both in terms of terrorism and how to make tall buildings safer. A lot of people are far more concerned about these issues than with pursuing crackpot, lunatic fringe conspiracy theories.

Diatribe

Mar 17, 2007, 02:09 PM

You know what's funny? The only people being real arrogant and condescending are the ones believing the official story. The others are only trying to get others to think, not necessarily to convince them their point is the only one.
Way to have an intelligent conversation :rolleyes:

In any case, there have been so many coverups in the history of mankind that at least it wouldn't be totally out of this world that this happened. (Whether it did or not is another story). But the manipulation happening in a lot of ways these days in the US is scary to say the least.

Diatribe

Mar 17, 2007, 02:17 PM

The "official story" was not created by the "media" but was the result of probably the most extensive and sophisticated forensic study of structural failure in history.

That alone is just untrue. There has been almost no analysis on the debree of the bulding after it collapsed, there have been no independent investigations of the debris of the WTC. Everything was carried away and destroyed really fast. And even the NIST report says they have done no structural behaviour analysis after the condition for the collapse was reached, basically saying that they didn't investigate anything of the actual collapse.
The computer models have not been peer reviewed, not even been made available, nothing.

How you can say something like that is really beyond me.

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 02:27 PM

That alone is just untrue. There has been almost no analysis on the debree of the bulding after it collapsed, there have been no independent investigations of the debris of the WTC. Everything was carried away and destroyed really fast. And even the NIST report says they have done no structural behaviour analysis after the condition for the collapse was reached, basically saying that they didn't investigate anything of the actual collapse.
The computer models have not been peer reviewed, not even been made available, nothing.

How you can say something like that is really beyond me.

You have not disproved anything I have said. We already know that the study of the failure was hampered by the inability to extensively study the debris. The investigators have said as much. We also know why this happened.

How anybody can believe crackpot conspiracy theories is beyond me.

skunk

Mar 17, 2007, 02:30 PM

How anybody can believe crackpot conspiracy theories is beyond me.How anybody can believe in an old bloke in a nightgown with a beard and a multiple personality is beyond me, but it happens. :rolleyes:

SC68Cal

Mar 17, 2007, 02:39 PM

in before jews did it.

...wait...nevermind

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 02:55 PM

The whole presentation of the official story of the WTC as a pancake collapse is a straw man, as the NIST faqs (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) state that their analysis of the collapse do not support a pancake theory. The video is deliberately misstating or oversimplifying the official story in order to make their theory seem more plausible.

The billiard ball vs. pancake collapse: If you look at the data graph they present for the pancake collapse theory...it shows a straight line, however...it also starts at the top floor...so it looks like that data represents the a pancake collapse had only the top floor fallen on the one under it, etc, etc...which is not what happened in the case of the WTC.

The pancake collapse footage shown when the narrator states "this is a pancake collapse" is of a 5/6 story office building/parking garage of reinforced concrete construction that looks to have collapsed during an earthquake...another situation quite different from the one at the WTC.

Notice also how the official story is presented not in terms of statements, but in terms of questions...while their theory is presented with statements, repetition of words that codify their theory (such as "you are seeing a demolition")...also, the use of "Carmina Burana", the only musical cue I've encountered so far, is used to further the case that this was a demolition...I can't remember which "Bad guy blows up building" movie this is associated with (I want to say Die Hard)...but I've heard this music and seen a building blown up on screen before.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 02:56 PM

.....I am in the twilight zone.

I will try not to be mean, but what shecky said is actually exactly how science is done. If you make a claim, you have to back it up by a proof. Not just say, he said, I heard, I watched this movie on iTube. A Proof
Seriously, don't tell people how science should be done if you don't have the slightest clue.

The underlying assumption behind shecky's demand for proof is that he is right, and anyone who disagrees needs to prove it. That's like when popular thinking had it that the Earth was flat, and anyone who said it was round, was called upon to "prove it". We all now know that it is round. My point is, that it never occured to the people who thought it was flat, that the people who thought it was round, also had the right to demand that the flat-earth thinkers had as much proving to do as the round-earth thinkers.

In other words, the burden of proving that the buildings fell faster than is possible without detonations helping, is no more on my shoulders than is the burden on shecky's shoulders to prove that they fell at a rate consistent with a pancake collapse without the aid of detonations.

So this "You prove it!", "No, you prove it!" thing is perhaps best left to people in a position to actually do so. Not TV reporters, not bloggers, not politicians, but scientists objectively focused on the truth. The truth is, after all, what any decent citizen in a democracy is really intrerested in. Believe it or not, I would be very happy to be totally persuaded that no demolitions were used, but I just can't see it (yet).

mactastic

Mar 17, 2007, 03:13 PM

Quite the opposite. The buildings were made and designed to take a bigger impact than that of 911, burn for days, and still stand.
Absolutely not true. The buildings were designed at a time when planes the size of the ones that hit is were not even thought of yet. The engineers who designed it were factoring in a smaller potential impact by plane.

Also, they were obviously not designed to "burn for days and still stand". Trust me, anyone who's done any steel-based structural design would not make that comment. The fact that you say it makes me think you have little in the way of understanding of how steel works as a structural material. Buildings are designed to allow people to get out before they fail, not to be impervious.

What surprised everyone was not how long they stood, but how quickly and perfectly they fell, especially the core beams.
Please explain what a "core beam" is. I've never heard of anything like that before.

Oh, by the way, I'm an architect. :)

The underlying assumption behind shecky's demand for proof is that he is right, and anyone who disagrees needs to prove it. That's like when popular thinking had it that the Earth was flat, and anyone who said it was round, was called upon to "prove it". We all now know that it is round.
The problem with this analogy is that the round earthers DID "prove it". It was the proof that they got in trouble for, if you recall. The flat earthers were the ones who were relying on myths and half-truths from questionable sources...

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 03:15 PM

How anybody can believe in an old bloke in a nightgown with a beard and a multiple personality is beyond me, but it happens. :rolleyes:

You leave my uncle out of this -- he had nothing to do with it!

(Which of course means he did, or I wouldn't have to deny it.)

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 03:25 PM

There was a high rise in Madrid, fully engulfed for 20 hours that is well documented, and it didn't fall over or collapse.

Take a look at the Windsor Tower article on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower) and you'll note several differences in construction between that tower and the WTC towers. Also, although it didn't fall over...the portions above la planta 21 where the fire began certainly did suffer considerable collapse.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 03:26 PM

You have not disproved anything I have said. We already know that the study of the failure was hampered by the inability to extensively study the debris. The investigators have said as much. We also know why this happened.

How anybody can believe crackpot conspiracy theories is beyond me.

Why in the name of heaven above would perhaps the greatest crime scene in the history of man not have been cordoned off, and every single bit of possible evidence saved and studied? When a plane crashes, even over the ocean, they will take years if necessary, to gather up every single speck they can possibly find, and reassemble the pieces of the entire plane in their original location, all spread out over an area bigger than five football fields, in order to find out what happened, in what order, and why.

So here we are, with the greatest crime scene on earth, but instead of studying it, analyzing it, and reconstructing it, regardless of time and cost, we rush in, cart it all away, destroy it, recycle it, and above all, make sure it can never be studied. Hmmmmm......

Do you honestly think that we know "why this happened", namely, the study of the failure was hampered due to the inability to extensively study the debris? Pray tell, I'd love to know by whom, when, where, and why the decision was made to forever erase our ability to definitively study the evidence that could have answered this compelling question. On whose authority, was this spectacular, phenomenal, crime scene's evidence destroyed, hampering your, my, and our fellow Americans' right to access to the truth. It seems, as you accurately point out, that this has been taken away from us. Why? What excuse for destorying, instead of preserving, the debris can there possibly be? What was the hurry? What was the motivation for the rush? What could possible have been more important to America, than taking our time, until all questions were answered?

skunk

Mar 17, 2007, 03:40 PM

You leave my uncle out of this -- he had nothing to do with it!That's not what they say on wherewasIJReilly'suncleon911.com

xsedrinam

Mar 17, 2007, 03:45 PM

That's not what they say on wherewasIJReilly'suncleon911.com
D'oh. And to think, I actually clicked on it with keen anticipation. This is enough to shrug an atlas.

mactastic

Mar 17, 2007, 03:52 PM

Why in the name of heaven above would perhaps the greatest crime scene in the history of man not have been cordoned off, and every single bit of possible evidence saved and studied? When a plane crashes, even over the ocean, they will take years if necessary, to gather up every single speck they can possibly find, and reassemble the pieces of the entire plane in their original location, all spread out over an area bigger than five football fields, in order to find out what happened, in what order, and why.

So here we are, with the greatest crime scene on earth, but instead of studying it, analyzing it, and reconstructing it, regardless of time and cost, we rush in, cart it all away, destroy it, recycle it, and above all, make sure it can never be studied. Hmmmmm......

Do you honestly think that we know "why this happened", namely, the study of the failure was hampered due to the inability to extensively study the debris? Pray tell, I'd love to know by whom, when, where, and why the decision was made to forever erase our ability to definitively study the evidence that could have answered this compelling question. On whose authority, was this spectacular, phenomenal, crime scene's evidence destroyed, hampering your, my, and our fellow Americans' right to access to the truth. It seems, as you accurately point out, that this has been taken away from us. Why? What excuse for destorying, instead of preserving, the debris can there possibly be? What was the hurry? What was the motivation for the rush? What could possible have been more important to America, than taking our time, until all questions were answered?
Money. Places where planes crash are rarely worth so much on a "per square foot" basis.

As you have insinuated, when that much money is at stake people will do things they otherwise would not do, no?

skunk

Mar 17, 2007, 03:55 PM

Why in the name of heaven above would perhaps the greatest crime scene in the history of man not have been cordoned off, and every single bit of possible evidence saved and studied? Your superlatives are misplaced. Have you not heard of Auschwitz? Dresden? Grozny? Hiroshima?

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 03:58 PM

The buildings were designed at a time when planes the size of the ones that hit is were not even thought of yet. The engineers who designed it were factoring in a smaller potential impact by plane.

My understanding (not an expert) is that the fully loaded, fully fueled 707s that the buildings were designed to be hit by, packed about as much or more energy as the planes that hit them. I am sure this is researchable. Also, the 747's maiden flight was in 1969, certainly thought of, and even in the air flying commercially at the time the WTC was being built.

Please explain what a "core beam" is. I've never heard of anything like that before.

Oh, by the way, I'm an architect. :)

I respect your profession, and your expertise. My grandfather was an architect. The WTC Buildings each had 42 huge, central, vertical, "core" beams. They, and a less rigid external structure, were the basic source of the towers' structural rigidity. This is what I've read. I understand that these beams were incredibly beefy at the bottom, and became thinner towards the top. I understand that such beams can bend, deform, warp, and maybe even break, but not do what happened on 911. With such a core structure, I could more easily see the buildings falling over, than collapsing perfectly compression-style, the way they did, "core beams" included. Sorry if "core beams" isn't a real term.

The problem with this analogy is that the round earthers DID "prove it". It was the proof that they got in trouble for, if you recall. The flat earthers were the ones who were relying on myths and half-truths from questionable sources...

My point exactly. Maybe, the offical, media-disseminated, mainstream, "flat-earth" story is myths, half-truths, and from questionable scources. I'm the round-earth guy who nobody believes yet, but, who will someday be seen as having envisioned the truth, before it became mainstream. Hey, look at all the trouble I am getting in, Lol!

carbonmotion

Mar 17, 2007, 03:58 PM

They don't. Again, this comes back to what is said on TV, and what the Bush administration whats you to think. It is all about oil, my friend. Did Iraq have anything to do with 911? No. And don't act like if Iraq had not a drop of oil in its soil that we would be fighting a war there. This is such a complex topic, but I'll make it simple.
This is partially true.

911 = A Reason to invade Afganistan
Saddam = A reason to invade Iraq (with no WMDs found)
Once in Iraq, we can take their oil, and claim that we are there to fight terrorists. We are actually doing this, but the issue goes deeper than that.
9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan was justified, it was Iraq that was a preemptive and unsupported by some other world powers.

Iraq, 80 or so years ago used to be three countries that hated each other. Then the world decided to put those three together into one country and called it "Iraq". We then put in a puppet government which led to groups of extremists within Iraq (the original 3 groups that hated each other) to kill each other, which is pretty much what is going on today, except now each group has a fourth enemy, US.

For people who don't understand the history of foreign affairs, this a bit sounds almost reasonable. Unfortunately, If you've taken even one class on the history of Iraq, you'd know that this statement is almost entirely false. Even though Wikipedia's version of the history of Iraq has its mistakes, it's far more accurate than some guy's internet forum opinion. Read Sykes-Picot Agreement, Treaty of Sèvres, British Mandate of Mesopotamia, and the transition in to the Hashemite monarchy.

The post-author said, and I quote..."Iraq, 80 or so years ago used to be three countries that hated each other." This is false. Before the British Mandate, Iraq was three vilayets (translation: provinces) Ottoman empire called Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. However these provinces were all administered out of Baghdad. They were NOT three nation-states with full autonomy before the British Mandate. Pretty much everything this guy says is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. If you want to learn more about the history of Iraq, read Shams Inati's A History of Iraq or Phebe Marr's The Modern History of Iraq.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 04:04 PM

Money. Places where planes crash are rarely worth so much on a "per square foot" basis.

As you have insinuated, when that much money is at stake people will do things they otherwise would not do, no?

I totally agree.

Your superlatives are misplaced. Have you not heard of Auschwitz? Dresden? Grozny? Hiroshima?

You got me... no offense to the victims of those other examples of truly horrendous losses of life.

mactastic

Mar 17, 2007, 04:09 PM

Your superlatives are misplaced. Have you not heard of Auschwitz? Dresden? Grozny? Hiroshima?
While more people may have died in each of those places, certainly; none of those places are in America. Thus they do not make the cut.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 04:11 PM

For people who don't understand the history of foreign affairs, this a bit sounds almost reasonable. Unfortunately, If you've taken even one class on the history of Iraq, you'd know that this statement is almost entirely false.

The post-author said, and I quote..."Iraq, 80 or so years ago used to be three countries that hated each other." This is false. Before the British Mandate, Iraq was three vilayets (translation: provinces) Ottoman empire called Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra. However these provinces were all administered out of Baghdad. They were NOT three nation-states with full autonomy before the British Mandate. Pretty much everything this guy says is FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. If you want to learn more about the history of Iraq, read Shams Inati's A History of Iraq or Phebe Marr's The Modern History of Iraq.

My rendition of Iraq's history that I posted was a quickie job of what I attempted to vaguely remember from books I read a long time ago. I will do my research next time...

carbonmotion

Mar 17, 2007, 04:29 PM

this argument is really moot as most Americans don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. Also as someone who've worked in a Washington foreign policy think tank for a bit, I seriously doubt the government would need two blow up the twin towers in order to justify an invasion of Iraq. Suppose there was a group of policy writers in the U.S. Government that wants to fabricate a justification, they would be mostly of a military, intelligence, and think tank background... very, shall we say "experienced", people. They would probably create an incident, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, away from the media where all the personnel are military and thus fully gag-able. If you've studied CIA's directorate of operation and they're SAD team's history you will see that, it's all about clean, controlled chaos, with minimal exposure to the media. To hire terrorists to run airplanes in to the World Trade Center (unnecessary), which by itself would be enough to justify any war on any nation, then to blow it up seems extremely stupid from a espionage point of view.

Mechcozmo

Mar 17, 2007, 04:33 PM

Then the announcer said the 767 was a smaller aircraft than the 707.
The 767 is a larger aircraft.
Linkety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications) to 707 Specs
Linkety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications) to 767 Specs

The 767 has a larger wingspan and length tip-to-tail. The all 767 variants have a greater maximum takeoff weight than any of the 707 variants, except for the 767-200 which has a lower maximum takeoff weight than the 707-320B.

Looking at length and wingspan, I can tell this isn't true. If anyone has statistics on the actual weight of the craft as the hit the towers that would be interesting...
Your research is correct. From what I remember, the aircraft were early-morning flights and did not fly very far (only a couple hours at most) until impact at the WTC. It would be a logical conclusion that they were fueled up for at least the majority of the flights that day.

I'd also be interested in innovations in aircraft construction that might have made the 767 materials lighter but stronger.
More usage of titanium and thinner aluminum perhaps, but overall, the 767 is a heavier, larger, aircraft.

carbonmotion

Mar 17, 2007, 04:36 PM

The 767 is a larger aircraft.
Linkety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications) to 707 Specs
Linkety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications) to 767 Specs

The 767 has a larger wingspan and length tip-to-tail. The all 767 variants have a greater maximum takeoff weight than any of the 707 variants, except for the 767-200 which has a lower maximum takeoff weight than the 707-320B.

Your research is correct. From what I remember, the aircraft were early-morning flights and did not fly very far (only a couple hours at most) until impact at the WTC. It would be a logical conclusion that they were fueled up for at least the majority of the flights that day.

More usage of titanium and thinner aluminum perhaps, but overall, the 767 is a heavier, larger, aircraft.
the 787 is lighter but larger than the 767.... boeing makes a better plane with every generation.

Thomas Veil

Mar 17, 2007, 04:44 PM

Here is a report that debunks some common 9/11 myths, if anyone is interested http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htmPlease...don't confuse us with facts! :D

You know what's funny? The only people being real arrogant and condescending are the ones believing the official story. The others are only trying to get others to think, not necessarily to convince them their point is the only one.
Way to have an intelligent conversation :rolleyes:Thing is, a lot of us have heard this stuff, and then heard it disproved, several times already. Lacking any better "proof" than the stuff that keeps getting repeated over and over, we've moved on.

There are enough conspiracies that we can reasonably prove -- the U.S. attorney firing scandal being the latest -- without spending precious time going after dodgy stuff like this. It's like a magician's misdirection. You're looking over here, and they're doing the trick over there.

mactastic

Mar 17, 2007, 04:44 PM

My understanding (not an expert) is that the fully loaded, fully fueled 707s that the buildings were designed to be hit by, packed about as much or more energy as the planes that hit them. I am sure this is researchable. Also, the 747's maiden flight was in 1969, certainly thought of, and even in the air flying commercially at the time the WTC was being built.
I thought the towers were struck by 757s, which were not flying until much later? Also, please explain how a smaller plane, with presumably a smaller series of fuel tanks, can contain as much or more energy than a larger plane with a larger fuel load?

That doesn't sound physically possible.

I respect your profession, and your expertise. My grandfather was an architect. The WTC Buildings each had 42 huge, central, vertical, "core" beams. They, and a less rigid external structure, were the basic source of the towers' structural rigidity. This is what I've read. I understand that these beams were incredibly beefy at the bottom, and became thinner towards the top. I understand that such beams can bend, deform, warp, and maybe even break, but not do what happened on 911. With such a core structure, I could more easily see the buildings falling over, than collapsing perfectly compression-style, the way they did, "core beams" included. Sorry if "core beams" isn't a real term.
Ok. A word on terminology: Beams run horizontally. Columns go vertically. You're speaking of the central structural columns that were the main center structural element, and the building's shear resistance.

Have you ever watched rings slide down a pole? The don't travel horizontally much, do they? If you watch the buildings fall you see the top start to go sideways as you would expect in an uncontrolled failure, but then for some strange reason they go straight down instead - almost as if they were being guided down by a rigid structural core.

Also, when you think of a building failing, you generally think that a localized failure point has to generate sufficient force to destroy adjacent, but still structurally sound, points where failure is a potential, which would tend to result in an uneven failure. But in this case the fire had had an hour to weaken the steel connections, so when failure occurred it spread readily through nearly all the potential failure points. By doing so, it created favorable conditions for a nearly simultaneous failure of the entire floor, which would further add to the building's tendency to fall vertically.

Finally, something to consider regarding the time of the towers fall: You have to figure that the structural connections of at least the first five floors below the impact floor where the failure initiates were significantly weakened. Thus the top portion of the towers would have been guided down a column for at least that distance with very little resistance, gaining force as they drop. My understanding of physics tells me that in a force equation you can double your mass and double your force, but if you double your velocity you quadruple your force. This leads me to conclude that overwhelming force would be applied to the first floor that provided significant resistance, producing instantaneous failure and not slowing the top down any more than a train would slow if it hit you or I. Also consider that for many floors down fire would have had time to significantly weaken the steel - and remember, you don't have to make the beam fail to cause failure, you merely have to make the bolts holding the beams together fail. The resistance provided by the lower floors would increase as you got lower and away from the fire, but by that time the upper portion has enough momentum to render those floors useless in stopping the falling top portion. I wouldn't expect there to be much difference between free fall and this.

Mechcozmo

Mar 17, 2007, 04:49 PM

the 787 is lighter but larger than the 767.... boeing makes a better plane with every generation.

But I was comparing the 707 and the 767... and in any case, the 787 is going to be ~80% composite. Not so on the 767 or 707. Also, I'd like to point out that the 787 has not yet entered service.

And it really isn't that much lighter, especially if you look at the -8 and -9 variants. Them's scale-tippers.
Linkety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787#Specifications) to 787 specs

Now, I've interfered enough with my facts. Just remember to love Big Brother and you'll all be fine. :D

carbonmotion

Mar 17, 2007, 04:51 PM

But I was comparing the 707 and the 767... and in any case, the 787 is going to be ~80% composite. Not so on the 767 or 707. Also, I'd like to point out that the 787 has not yet entered service.

And it really isn't that much lighter, especially if you look at the -8 and -9 variants. Them's scale-tippers.
Linkety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787#Specifications) to 787 specs

Now, I've interfered enough with my facts. Just remember to love Big Brother and you'll all be fine. :D

i was merely adding a fact to your fact.

SRSound

Mar 17, 2007, 05:14 PM

SRSound

Mar 17, 2007, 05:22 PM

You know what's funny? The only people being real arrogant and condescending are the ones believing the official story. The others are only trying to get others to think, not necessarily to convince them their point is the only one.
Way to have an intelligent conversation :rolleyes:

You are a breath of fresh air.

For the others: I do want to point out that the reason I enjoyed this movie so much is that it does not point fingers, it does not make any specific accusation, it simply raises interesting questions and provides well thought-out suggestive explanations. If you're so sure of your viewpoint, how could it hurt to take a chance and listen to an alternate view?

carbonmotion

Mar 17, 2007, 05:35 PM

Most Americans don't believe in the 9-11 conspiracy theory, so I don't think it will have a significant impact on the 2008 presidential elections. I personally have read two books by consipracy theory authors and it seems like the a little bit of crappy science mixed with a complete lack of understanding of U.S. FP. Futhermore, noone that I know of in the U.S. academic community, government officials, or think tank analysts takes these ideas seriously. They are at best a good saturday night laugh at the bar and at worest a disgrace to the people who died on the towers and at the pentagon that day.

Futhermore, you should read the 9-11 Commission Final Report... not read excerpts from it but actually read it before making a comparision between the official story and the DVD debunking of it. I tend to find in books about 9-11 conspiracies books that authors take things out of context.

mrkramer

Mar 17, 2007, 05:40 PM

Also, they were obviously not designed to "burn for days and still stand".
I think that they were designed to be able to take either the fire or the plane crash, but with both it was too much. At least that is what happened with building 7, it had a large amount of structural damage from the other towers collapsing, and it had a fire in it fueled by propane for emergency generators that was stored there, Building 7 could have withstood the structural damage or the fire, but with both combined it failed.

Why in the name of heaven above would perhaps the greatest crime scene in the history of man not have been cordoned off, and every single bit of possible evidence saved and studied?

THe reason why the debris were carried off immediately was that they thought that there could be people still alive in the rubble, so they tried to dig them out, and I believe that they rescued 20 people who would not have survived if it had just been cordoned off to be studied.

Sun Baked

Mar 17, 2007, 05:56 PM

If, as the building fell, the accumulated mass above the floor being crushed were to build up, and increase as the crushing continued, (increased kinetic energy), you are absolutely right. The acceleration curve of the collapse would not and could not be linear. [B]But remember, at the instant of any given lower floor being crushed, the umpteen floors above it don't exist anymore, therefore, the impact on, say, the 16th floor by the debris slamming onto it, is no greater than the impact was that slammed onto, say, the 84th floor. As the 16th floor is being crushed, there is no more mass, or kinetic energy above it, than there was relative to the 84th floor when it was crushed. The one exception is the speed generated from gravity, which remember, has been repeatedly interrupted and slowed somewhat as each floor was hit, absorbed energy, and then collapsed.

Actually, the floors do exist as mass which is falling faster all the time -- and increasing in kinetic energy.

The rubble of the floor above do have an energy that is still smacking into the floors below. And that mass will be a combination of fluid mass/solid mass -- and will increase in mass and speed as it falls.

And the energy needed to destroy a floor, won't change at all, and is quickly becoming a smaller percentage of that wave of rubble falling down so that rubble mass as a whole will be slowed less with each floor as the kinetic energy rapidly increases.

Just trust in the common sense that while a 1 ton concrete block dropped from 10 feet will kill you.

You are likely to be just as dead if a 10 ton loose bag of rubble dropped from 100 feet falls on you. And the hardhat is likely going to be even less effective at stopping the rubble that it was at stopping the solid concrete block.

Edit: Personally, I'd probably like to see it modeled it as a energy equation to see how long the series takes to complete. Which likely would put you in a 10-15 second ballpark.

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 06:04 PM

...take the time to watch the linked movie which does a very good job of presenting a claim then then backing it up with data

...the reason I enjoyed this movie so much is that it does not point fingers, it does not make any specific accusation, it simply raises interesting questions and provides well thought-out suggestive explanations.

The problem is that the way the film presents the data and stories is not equal to a objective presentation of scientific data. The film employs a number of devices in attempts to portray the official story as less credible and their theories as more credible.

1) The narrator is often telling us "what you are seeing is..."
2) The script frames the official story in questioning language or as a myth, whereas the theories presented are scripted in statements...which are often repeated or excerpted on screen.
3) Editing and special effects framing are used in similar manners...use of dissolved, "shaky" or canted angles to throw suspicion on certain facts. Even the "Official Story" label is slanted...suggesting that it is crooked and untrustworthy.

In addition, there are a couple of areas where I suspect the producers have replaced the existing audio track to manipulate news footage and removed frames from supposed frame-by-frame motion sequences.

I've dealt with some of the specific misrepresentations of facts in my earlier posts.

Film by its nature is the most manipulative of art form, and therefore should be observed with the most critical eye...every detail is controlled, what you see/are shown, what you hear/are told, how shots are combined with each other. Any film, documentary or otherwise, should be regarded as no more factual than a Pixar animated feature.

mactastic

Mar 17, 2007, 06:22 PM

I think that they were designed to be able to take either the fire or the plane crash, but with both it was too much. At least that is what happened with building 7, it had a large amount of structural damage from the other towers collapsing, and it had a fire in it fueled by propane for emergency generators that was stored there, Building 7 could have withstood the structural damage or the fire, but with both combined it failed.
I'll say it again: Buildings are not designed to stand up to a worst case scenario. They are designed to stand up long enough to allow people to exit the building, and to allow the firefighters time to prevent the fire from spreading.

They are not designed to "take" a fire.

SRSound

Mar 17, 2007, 06:31 PM

The problem is that the way the film presents the data and stories is not equal to a objective presentation of scientific data. The film employs a number of devices in attempts to portray the official story as less credible and their theories as more credible.

1) The narrator is often telling us "what you are seeing is..."
2) The script frames the official story in questioning language or as a myth, whereas the theories presented are scripted in statements...which are often repeated or excerpted on screen.
3) Editing and special effects framing are used in similar manners...use of dissolved, "shaky" or canted angles to throw suspicion on certain facts. Even the "Official Story" label is slanted...suggesting that it is crooked and untrustworthy.

In addition, there are a couple of areas where I suspect the producers have replaced the existing audio track to manipulate news footage and removed frames from supposed frame-by-frame motion sequences.

I've dealt with some of the specific misrepresentations of facts in my earlier posts.

Film by its nature is the most manipulative of art form, and therefore should be observed with the most critical eye...every detail is controlled, what you see/are shown, what you hear/are told, how shots are combined with each other. Any film, documentary or otherwise, should be regarded as no more factual than a Pixar animated feature.

I would actually have to agree with you on all points - there is no denying the film is heavily slanted to suggest their theory. And, as you pointed out, films are manipulative by nature and must be watched with a critical eye. This is precisely why I am careful not to agree or disagree with the film; rather, I simply continue to say that it raises interesting questions. What I will say is that I am greatly disheartened by the fact that this is a possibility at all.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 17, 2007, 06:40 PM

How about reading more carefully before jumping to conclusions - I didn't make any claim. I simply suggested that in the quest for scientific evidence, shecky should take the time to watch the linked movie which does a very good job of presenting a claim then then backing it up with data. Ahh, the scientific process...something I apparrently know nothing about after years of studying neuroscience, psychology, and medicine.

OK, one more time. shecky said:
i will make it really simple for you, and i will use small words also so my point is not missed: PROOVE to me that a structural failure with jet fuel raging takes 96 seconds to fall down.
You retorted:
shecky If you have any kind of scientific mind and desire scientific proof (or evidence, if there is such a thing), do take the time to watch the movie.
I later tried (in vain) to explain to you that:
If you make a claim, you have to back it up by a proof.

Since you apparently don't understand that, you don't have a clue about science.

Finally, here is my contribution to the spitting contest: I have ten years behind me as a theoretical researcher. I referee submitted papers for one of Americas most prestigious scientific journals. I should have some basic idea about the concepts of science, right?

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 07:23 PM

THe reason why the debris were carried off immediately was that they thought that there could be people still alive in the rubble, so they tried to dig them out, and I believe that they rescued 20 people who would not have survived if it had just been cordoned off to be studied.

I realize this... but that was not my main question. I am all for the removal of evidence from ground zero in order to save lives... but what you did not answer is why in the hell the evidence was destroyed! I just can't get over it... please give me a good reason why that evidence was destoryed. The answer is obvious... if we would have actually taken a good look at the evidence it would be clear that there was foul play. I have yet to hear a good reason from anyone up in the ranks of government on why that evndence was destroyed.

Sun Baked

Mar 17, 2007, 07:29 PM

I realize this... but that was not my main question. I am all for the removal of evidence from ground zero in order to save lives... but what you did not answer is why in the hell the evidence was destroyed! I just can't get over it... please give me a good reason why that evidence was destoryed. The answer is obvious... if we would have actually taken a good look at the evidence it would be clear that there was foul play. I have yet to hear a good reason from anyone up in the ranks of government on why that evndence was destroyed.

There wasn't enough room or money to save all the evidence ... a jet takes a hangar to save.

All these building likely would take hundreds of acres to store, plus the EPA would land hard on anyone trying to open a junkyard that big.

All they could to was look for structural evidence, place it in a holding area for further inspection and move it out as soon as possible to make room for more evidence.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 07:29 PM

OK, one more time. shecky said:

You retorted:

I later tried (in vain) to explain to you that:

Since you apparently don't understand that, you don't have a clue about science.

Finally, here is my contribution to the spitting contest: I have ten years behind me as a theoretical researcher. I referee submitted papers for one of Americas most prestigious scientific journals. I should have some basic idea about the concepts of science, right?

This again?? You have to be kidding me! I won't join the debate about whether any of you understand science, but I will quote myself, becuase we MUST stop this "just prooove it" game if any of us plan on getting anything done. Here it is. Read it and please let us stop bickering about who should give the proof.

You would have to personally be an engineer, and do the calculations yourself to understand the mathemetical proof for why a building that size cannot collapse fully from top to bottom in only 10 seconds without detonations helping the collapse. If anyone else does these calculations, you can say "that's BS". If they put their proof on the internet, then you simply call it "YouTube BS". You may not be an engineer, and I may not be an engineer, but there is a group of them out there with the brainpower to perform these calculations. They did the calculations, they came up with 96 seconds, and I believe them, and you don't. There is no link I can send you that you will not condemn, and claim "that's not proof, just proooove it!!"

Sending you a link that you then call "YouTube nonsense" will not work with you. Unless you want 15,000 pages of numbers on your screen that you can't understand, (and then will say is BS anyway), you will never have this "proof" that you want. Get it? If someone sent you the proof that you so crave, you would not understand it and dismiss it as BS.

How about this. You have no more proof in the true mathematical sense for your position, than I do for mine. My last observation is that I find it astounding and naive that so many people who get their information from the TV News, and surfing the web somehow believe that other people who get their information from the same sources are wrong and required to provide proof. You have a claim that you have not proved, I have a claim that I have not proved; yours is not automatically right. I could rightfully expect you not to "be a sheep", falling for what you see on TV, and demand that you PROVE to me what you think happened. I suggest you read: 9/11 and American Empire Intellectuals Speak Out (Griffin & Scott 2007). It is full of the type of proof by engineers and witnesses that I believe to be true. As I said above, you will probably react to this book (like everything else) by saying "Yeah... but proove it!" But that's cool. We're both gonna believe what we want to believe.

I don't want to anger anybody, I just want everyone to stop saying "prove it". Lets please move on.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 07:40 PM

There wasn't enough room or money to save all the evidence ... a jet takes a hangar to save.

All these building likely would take hundreds of acres to store, plus the EPA would land hard on anyone trying to open a junkyard that big.

All they could to was look for structural evidence, place it in a holding area for further inspection and move it out as soon as possible to make room for more evidence.

If the we had wanted badly enough to find out what really happened, we would have! I admit it would take a massive area to store everything... but boy oh boy were those guys in a rush to destory that evidence as fast as they possibly could. If we can spend over one million dollars per minute 24/7/365 on our military, and since 9/11 was certainly a national defense issue, than surely we could have afforded to have a very good look at that evidence.

aquajet

Mar 17, 2007, 07:40 PM

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 07:44 PM

Sorry if this has been answered already, but was there ever a link or reference provided that references the design specs of the WTC that includes its ability to withstand an impact from a fully-loaded 707?

In the movie, one of the original designers of the WTC is interviewed, and the plane crash scenario was discussed reasonably thoroughly. I don't remember the exact time that that scene happened, but it is in there.

Dr.Gargoyle

Mar 17, 2007, 07:54 PM

This again?? You have to be kidding me! I won't join the debate about whether any of you understand science, but I will quote myself, becuase we MUST stop this "just prooove it" game if any of us plan on getting anything done. Here it is. Read it and please let us stop bickering about who should give the proof.
Ehm, if you read it one more time you might realize it wasn't directed at you.

Sun Baked

Mar 17, 2007, 07:56 PM

Sorry if this has been answered already, but was there ever a link or reference provided that references the design specs of the WTC that includes its ability to withstand an impact from a fully-loaded 707?

Reflections on the World Trade Center.pdf (http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/0754c87f163f599e85256cca00588f49/85256e8d00838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf)

The article by the lead structural engineer for the Tower begins on page 5, includes some graphics and info on the planes.

biturbomunkie

Mar 17, 2007, 07:56 PM

From what I remember, the aircraft were early-morning flights and did not fly very far (only a couple hours at most) until impact at the WTC. It would be a logical conclusion that they were fueled up for at least the majority of the flights that day.

it is important to realize that fueling an aircraft is not like fueling up a car. aviation fueling requires the consideration of weight (i.e. passenger load and cargo). more weight to carry translates to more fuel is required. none of the 9-11 aircrafts was more than half-full. also, keep in mind that less fuel means the total weight of the aircraft is less.

pseudobrit

Mar 17, 2007, 08:05 PM

You know what's funny? The only people being real arrogant and condescending are the ones believing the official story.

You know what? I don't give a ****. I refuse to coddle those acting as though they suffered psychological illness nor will I grant any respect to delusions.

Zwhaler

Mar 17, 2007, 08:09 PM

Ehm, if you read it one more time you might realize it wasn't directed at you.

Yeah... I just read it again and you are right. I read it the first time I saw prove it written there and I just though oh shoot - Ill be more careful next time:o

product26

Mar 17, 2007, 08:09 PM

Believe what you will. But I am certain that we have all been lied to.

about one thing or another.

mrkramer

Mar 17, 2007, 08:20 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 17, 2007, 08:24 PM

The truth is a bunch of Saudi's flew planes into the towers, Then we attacked Iraq for it.

TheAnswer

Mar 17, 2007, 08:27 PM

In the movie, one of the original designers of the WTC is interviewed, and the plane crash scenario was discussed reasonably thoroughly. I don't remember the exact time that that scene happened, but it is in there.

It's in there, relatively early...I believe he compares the design to a mosquito net (to which my response is still "show me a load-bearing mosquito net")...It's just before the narrator misrepresents the size of the 767 in comparison to the 707.

I dug up a little more on the producer of the film and ran across this (http://non-conspiracist9-11.blogspot.com/)...about one third of the way down, there is an misuse analysis by one videographer of his footage from that day. To sum up, the film edits out portions of footage, adds elements into the audio track and even presents footage from WTC1 as WTC2...he's also like to be paid for the use of his footage.

To easily find the entry, you can use "Find..." to search the page for "Sofia Shafquat"

SRSound

Mar 17, 2007, 09:52 PM

OK, one more time. shecky said:

You retorted:

I later tried (in vain) to explain to you that:

Since you apparently don't understand that, you don't have a clue about science.

I apologize that this is unclear: I didn't make any claim to begin with; I was simply offering help to Zwhaler's argument by redirecting shecky to the movie for proof. Since I didn't make a claim myself, I am under no scientific obligation to proove anything. Right?

I didnt say anything against you, try to discredit you, or even suggest you dont know what youre talking about. Shecky asked for proof, I directed him to the movie which provides that (rather then effortlessly quoting the movie without references). End of story. And I apologize for my sharp retort if that offended anyone.

mrkramer

Mar 17, 2007, 10:06 PM

WHAT CLAIM DID I MAKE THAT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP?

That the government caused the attacks on 9/11 and have been trying to cover it up.

princealfie

Mar 18, 2007, 12:39 AM

That the government caused the attacks on 9/11 and have been trying to cover it up.

or that this was only half the story and it was more like collab.

IJ Reilly

Mar 18, 2007, 01:07 AM

Reflections on the World Trade Center.pdf (http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridgecom.nsf/0754c87f163f599e85256cca00588f49/85256e8d00838af385256f2a004578e3/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf)

The article by the lead structural engineer for the Tower begins on page 5, includes some graphics and info on the planes.

And also states:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

It was the fire, not the impact of the airplanes, which caused the towers to collapse.

oober_freak

Mar 18, 2007, 01:12 AM

The truth is a bunch of Saudi's flew planes into the towers, Then we attacked Iraq for it.

+1

TheAnswer

Mar 18, 2007, 01:49 AM

For everyone on both sides of this debate that actually watched the 90 minute video linked in the first post...here is a 2:35 minute video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934) that takes the original film and analyzes it's sources, distortions, omissions of fact point-by-point.

SRSound

Mar 18, 2007, 11:37 AM

That the government caused the attacks on 9/11 and have been trying to cover it up.

You people seriously need to actually READ posts. Of course I dont think our government is responsible - but I do think there is more then meets the eye. I neither agreed nor disagreed with this film, I simply suggested that it raised interesting questions and provided interesting data to support Zwhalers arguments. This is getting too frustrating.

mactastic

Mar 18, 2007, 11:39 AM

I believe he compares the design to a mosquito net (to which my response is still "show me a load-bearing mosquito net")"
The exterior structure of the WTC buildings IS analogous to a load-bearing mosquito net.

Unlike most skyscrapers, which use a "curtain wall" exterior that is essentially hung off the interior load bearing structure, the WTC had open floor plans free of interior columns because the exterior wall was a load-bearing structure.

TheAnswer

Mar 18, 2007, 11:51 AM

The exterior structure of the WTC buildings IS analogous to a load-bearing mosquito net.

Unlike most skyscrapers, which use a "curtain wall" exterior that is essentially hung off the interior load bearing structure, the WTC had open floor plans free of interior columns because the exterior wall was a load-bearing structure.

That's exactly my point, the film deliberately makes a bad analogy...the person in the film says he doesn't believe a single plane would have effected the structural integrity and compares it to a mosquito net or screen door (insert shot of pencil poking thru screen door)...no mention of how the external WTC structure was load-bearing and thus different from an everyday screen door/mosquito net.

Mechcozmo

Mar 18, 2007, 12:29 PM

it is important to realize that fueling an aircraft is not like fueling up a car. aviation fueling requires the consideration of weight (i.e. passenger load and cargo). more weight to carry translates to more fuel is required. none of the 9-11 aircrafts was more than half-full. also, keep in mind that less fuel means the total weight of the aircraft is less.

Yes, I do realize that. That's why aircraft report their fuel in pounds and not gallons. (At least, the big ones do) But I'd also like to point out that fueling an aircraft takes time, and time is money for the airlines. You don't want to be spending 15 minutes fueling an aircraft if it would be more profitable for the craft to just turn around and keep flying.

And if we're comparing 767s to 707s, and since 767s are more efficient than 707s, there would have to be more fuel in a 707 for a comparable distance. I think.

MacDawg worked at an airport I think... he might be a good person to ask about this.

mactastic

Mar 18, 2007, 12:59 PM

That's exactly my point, the film deliberately makes a bad analogy...the person in the film says he doesn't believe a single plane would have effected the structural integrity and compares it to a mosquito net or screen door (insert shot of pencil poking thru screen door)...no mention of how the external WTC structure was load-bearing and thus different from an everyday screen door/mosquito net.
But a single plane didn't affect the structural integrity, did it? It wasn't the plane impact that brought the towers down - it was the fire. If the impact had been enough, the towers would have fallen immediately after the impact.

pseudobrit

Mar 18, 2007, 01:09 PM

obeygiant

Mar 18, 2007, 01:36 PM

The doc that I saw on PBS said that the steal beams inside the WTC were covered with a fire proof/retardant coating and that the impact from the planes blew the coating away so that the beams were directly exposed to the 2000 degree jet fuel fire. The beams warped and buckled under the extreme heat. If there was just a fire those beams would have been protected by the coating.

TheAnswer

Mar 18, 2007, 01:42 PM

But is affect the structural integrity necessarily equal to the towers down?

It's a question (as I'm not of sure the exact architectural/engineering definition of the phrase). I don't disagree that the fires were the key factor in the collapse of the structures, but do I believe the planes undermined their structural integrity in a number of ways.

Sun Baked

Mar 18, 2007, 02:35 PM

The planes impacts were designed to inflict the most possible damage to the structure as possible, something that likely would not have been the case with an accidental impact.

The fires worked to undermine the most sensitive part of the structure to fire, the engineered floor truss system -- which firefighters worry about in low rise structures. These trusses can only sag so much before they pull out of their connections to the walls.

Take out enough floors and the external walls are at extreme risk of buckling, and drop enough floors onto the floors below and you risk starting a progressive collapse of the floors, tearing all the floors away from the core and external columns as they fall.

They did some testing with the 35 foot WTC-style truss system to determine a fire rating, but I don't think they did a 60 foot or overloaded truss with a single truss supporting the weight of several floors.

IJ Reilly

Mar 18, 2007, 03:08 PM

Anonymous Freak

Mar 18, 2007, 03:47 PM

Yes, I do realize that. That's why aircraft report their fuel in pounds and not gallons. (At least, the big ones do) But I'd also like to point out that fueling an aircraft takes time, and time is money for the airlines. You don't want to be spending 15 minutes fueling an aircraft if it would be more profitable for the craft to just turn around and keep flying.

And if we're comparing 767s to 707s, and since 767s are more efficient than 707s, there would have to be more fuel in a 707 for a comparable distance. I think.

MacDawg worked at an airport I think... he might be a good person to ask about this.

My first job out of high school, I worked at an airport. As an aircraft fueler. I am now also a private pilot, and have friends who are airline pilots.

Airliners are fueled between flights. EVERY TIME. They load exactly the amount of fuel needed to reach the destination, plus a one and a half hour reserve. Loading extra fuel means carrying extra weight. Extra weight means it takes even more fuel to fly.

It is much more cost effective to refuel at every stop. It takes time to unload passengers and cargo, and load new passengers and cargo. (Even if the majority of the passengers are 'continuing on' to the next stop, there is still a half an hour layover.) This is more than enough time to refuel.

The process for an airliner throughout the day is as follows (for the average domestic flight equipment:)

It is parked at an airport overnight. During this time, a 'minimum load' of fuel is loaded. This is the amount of fuel that would be the absolute minimum needed for that model of aircraft to fly its shortest route, with minimum load, the next day. (Often, airlines don't decide which aircraft will fly which route until the morning.)

In the morning, when the equipment has been tasked to a certain flight, and the approximate passenger and cargo load is determined, the pilot requests the final fuel loadout. The plane is then fueled to this point.

When the aircraft lands at any destination, it is again determined what the passenger and cargo load will be for the next leg, and the fuel will be loaded for that leg.

Why do they do it this way? Simple: weight.

A 747 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_classics.html) can hold 48,445 gallons of fuel. Jet fuel (Jet A is what airliners use,) weighs approximately (depending on factors like altitude, humidity, and temperature,) 6.8 (http://www.faqs.org/qa/qa-2617.html) pounds per gallon. That is approximately 331 363 pounds. A fully loaded 747 has a maximum takeoff weight (see first link,) of 735,000 pounds. That means on a fully fueled aircraft, fuel alone is 45% of takeoff weight. (Based on the original 747-100. For the 747-400ER, it's 47%.) The upcoming more efficient 787 will actually have *MORE* by weight in fuel, since the aircraft itself will weigh less.)

RugoseCone

Mar 18, 2007, 04:49 PM

I watched the 90 minute video and it's just awful as far as a conspiracy theory goes. They interchangeably use the terms implosion and explosion. They make copious use of out of context quotes. Re-sequencing of obviously larger clips from other sources is evident. The cores have mysteriously disappeared! Oh wait, twenty minutes later there they are, involved in a completely contradictory theory. I've never seen so many contradictions in one place.

I really enjoyed the misuse of "pyroclastic flow". I suppose there is a volcano under the WTC site? Also fantastic was a software developer opining on the way the buildings were destroyed. Way to support your argument with "experts". What did they say he was, a metal hobbyist or something?

I'm all for questioning authority and not being spoon-fed by the mass media and government; but this has to be the most poorly crafted bit of propaganda I've ever had the misfortune to waste any time on.

I think this sums up this video nicely 911 Conspiracy (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)

mactastic

Mar 18, 2007, 09:59 PM

But is necessarily equal to ?

It's a question (as I'm not of sure the exact architectural/engineering definition of the phrase). I don't disagree that the fires were the key factor in the collapse of the structures, but do I believe the planes undermined their structural integrity in a number of ways.
Sure the planes made the structure weaker, but they did not weaken it enough to precipitate a collapse.

mactastic

Mar 18, 2007, 10:13 PM

They didn't survive the fire, which the designers did not consider.
The designers actually did consider fire, just not a fire after all the fireproofing surrounding the steel structural members had been blown away by the plane impacts. However, I can guarantee that fire considerations were high on the architect's priority list. I know they are any time I have to get a building approved.

TheDance511

Mar 18, 2007, 10:27 PM

we are being watched

IJ Reilly

Mar 19, 2007, 12:24 AM

The designers actually did consider fire, just not a fire after all the fireproofing surrounding the steel structural members had been blown away by the plane impacts. However, I can guarantee that fire considerations were high on the architect's priority list. I know they are any time I have to get a building approved.

Right, I know. I did leave out some details. Buildings of this size have sophisticated fire protection systems designed by fire protection systems engineers. But even they probably could not have planned for the circumstances encountered with the WTC, including the loss of the fireproofing materials, the intensity and duration of the fire, and the failure of the suppression systems. I guess you could say that the 9/11 attackers got very lucky. They could hardly have guessed at how destructive flying airplanes into these buildings would be. Nobody knew, really -- until it happened.

Anonymous Freak

Mar 19, 2007, 07:26 PM

Right, I know. I did leave out some details. Buildings of this size have sophisticated fire protection systems designed by fire protection systems engineers. But even they probably could not have planned for the circumstances encountered with the WTC, including the loss of the fireproofing materials, the intensity and duration of the fire, and the failure of the suppression systems. I guess you could say that the 9/11 attackers got very lucky. They could hardly have guessed at how destructive flying airplanes into these buildings would be. Nobody knew, really -- until it happened.

I've seen (can't remember now, it's been a few years,) testimony/evidence (can't remember if it was an admission of guilt by someone, or just papers from the planning,) that showed that the 9/11 plotters guessed at how destructive the planes would be, but in a different way. They thought that the mere impact would be enough to cause the top sections to collapse immediately. Something like that when they saw on TV that the towers hadn't immediately collapsed, they had considered the mission a failure! It wasn't until the fire brought them down that they realized that they had, indeed, succeeded.

Although, thankfully for us their original plan didn't work, it gave some people time to evacuate. I remember when I was woken up (I live on the West coast, and worked a swing shift at the time,) and told to turn on the TV, the first thing I saw was the first tower falling down. I didn't know much else at that point (I hadn't realized that it had been hit a full hour earlier,) and I figured that TENS of thousands had just died. As bad as it sounds, we were LUCKY that Al Qaeda was wrong.

SC68Cal

Mar 20, 2007, 06:14 PM

Here is some good reading material for this thread...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion_1992_Russia.jpg

I really just love how quickly the "blame the jew" game starts. It's only what, 6 years since 9/11?

Mechcozmo

Mar 21, 2007, 12:43 AM

My first job out of high school, I worked at an airport. As an aircraft fueler. I am now also a private pilot, and have friends who are airline pilots.
(snip)

Thanks. Sorry for my bad assumption, and thanks for the great explanation.

And we're worried about gas milage on SUVs...:rolleyes:

spork183

Mar 21, 2007, 12:47 AM

911 an inside job? Hard to get that plane hit from the inside. Maybe take it up in the freight elevator?

Just because things are chaotic after a major terrorism event and its hard to piece things together and make everything fit, doesn't make it an inside job. Does make for compelling theater...

Sun Baked

Mar 21, 2007, 06:17 PM

Does make for compelling theater...

Yes it does, WTC7 was undamaged with a small fire -- yet someone had doctored photos of the other side of the building smoking from nearly every floor.

With all the "they are out to get us statements" you'd think the number of people that lost their free government anti-psychotic prescriptions is rather huge.

This large a number of whackjobs is likely a bigger indication that the health system is broken -- not that the government has produced another fake media event like the moon landing.

KingYaba

Mar 24, 2007, 12:12 PM

solvs

Mar 24, 2007, 05:22 PM

Bush is an incompetent boob not capable of devising an elaborate plan such as 9/11. You give him too much credit. ;)

I don't see how anyone who believes the US government killed their own people would continue to live within the United States. Do you not feel safe?

Didn't SiliconAddict used to have a sig that said something about incompetence being a lot better an explanation than conspiracy? There are definitely questions, but a lot of theories out there that don't make a lot of sense. For some of us, we just can't face that the gov is actually that evil, no matter how much we dislike them. Some can't even face the fact that the gov is incompetent. Some are more comforted by the fact that the gov is more in control than the really are. The idea that they let this happen is unconscionable. It's actually easier to believe they let it happen or even planned it than that they just screwed up.

They did have evidence something was going to happen, but ignored it. Out of incompetence, ignorance, or malice I don't know. For all we know, it was all 3.

SC68Cal

Mar 24, 2007, 07:06 PM

All of you conspiracy nuts:

Please consider this (http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/september_11_conspiracy_theories/)

Sun Baked

Mar 24, 2007, 08:27 PM

They did have evidence something was going to happen, but ignored it. Out of incompetence, ignorance, or malice I don't know. For all we know, it was all 3.

Typical government is to focus on the last terror delivery method, since it was a truck bomb ... they would focus on locking down vehicles.

I don't think they ignored it, their tunnel vision hampered them.

Now they are thinking planes, which means that a terrorist bus driver can easily kill a busload of kids. :(

You don't need a bomb or anything that'll raise flags, just a bus, a job at a school and a handy bridge, canyon, or cliff.

iW00t

Mar 24, 2007, 08:39 PM

"The great masses of the people... Will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler

I think all of you who genuinely believe that GWB is a moron, or idiot, or a monkey... are the true morons, idiots, and monkeys. My take is that he is so clever and intelligent that he is able to knowingly make enough slip ups in public to create that perception that he is an idiot, and hence not receive blame when he "appears" to screw up or make wrong decisions.

Nevermind the fact that all these wrongs and stupid decisions he made seems to have enriched his family a lot and pretty much no one else.

pseudobrit

Mar 25, 2007, 12:02 PM

"The great masses of the people... Will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler

I think all of you who genuinely believe that GWB is a moron, or idiot, or a monkey... are the true morons, idiots, and monkeys.

I think you just killed the thread.

I mean, Godwin and a blanket personal attack in two sentences.

Have fun in Conspiracy Land!

mischief

Mar 26, 2007, 12:58 PM

As little as I trust the Executive at the moment I do trust the IAFF.

The IAFF report on the WTC was conclusive, thorough, solidly grounded in physics and chemistry and generated by a body of experts that are extremely difficult to influence. This was not anything like the shoddy medical reports of JFK's body, this was an extensive and evidence-based report by the formost Fire Investigators in the world. To summarily dismiss that work is naive and extremely disrespectful.

There's enough credible evidence in my opinion to show active non-response to an evolving threat but to imply complicitude goes too far. I'd say that it was clear to both sides that a serious terrorist action would be mutually bennificial, though the neocons were less realistic in that regard than Al Qaida who has bennifited far more. Though I would NOT be foolish enough to assume that there was some dark-robed sith lord functioning as intermediary.

I am a believer in the natural evolution of cluster****s I am NOT a believer in the "five old men that control EVERYTHING" mythos.

I also believe that naturally evolving destructive patterns are often exploited or encouraged but that active participation is almost never required. We've made enough enemies it was only a matter of time.