There's not much doubt that this administration knew the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them. How many died because they wanted 9/11 to happen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.htm...

from the NYT article:

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

Here's a bugmenot backdoor

rkramden
busdriver

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
There's not much doubt that this administration knew the 9/11 attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them.

From the extensive research that's been done on it and presented on the internet, that conclusion is inescapable.

Still though, we continue being treated to hearing dimwitted Bush-worshippers proclaim -----"Aww, you'd hafta be a idjit to think they could have done anything to prevent the attacks!....why!, they had no idear them terrorists had any plans to highjack planes!"

It is not only that Bush (and/or people in positions of power in that administration) sat by and allowed the planned attacks to take place, it is that they actively conspired for intelligence efforts, such as those by the FBI, to be directed away from the terrorists and their plans to insure that they would be unimpeded.

They needed and wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" so they could incite the sheep to war. They said so in writing. .

Do you assholes have the slightest clue how many warnings they receive EACH DAY? It's purely half-witted to think that every individual threat is isolated, looked into, and completely dispelled when it's just not practical or financially feasible to do it. While you ponder that, think about this:

The real way to question the validity of our preventative measures is to ask yourself if we've been attacked since 9-11. Have we implemented a plan to protect us against future 9-11's? Well I believe we have, and to put it simply, the proof is in the pudding. We HAVEN'T been assaulted one time since, and during the interim, we've dismantled a corrupt regime, installed two democracies, head hunted a huge number of terrorists, buried Bin Laden, secured a future source of oil, established some territory, and are doing something in a region of the world we've had issues with since the Carter administration. All things considered, not too bad for our stage in the game.

And btw, you guys sound like magpies...

Rice was given several warnings including a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US" and they even practiced defending against planes flying into building.

What more did she need to know? Their seat numbers?

Our soldiers and innocent Iraquis are dead because of these people's total incompetence.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Our soldiers and innocent Iraquis are dead because of these people's total incompetence.

Dop
WTF are you talking about?

And clearly, that's related to the fact that they didn't stop these pricks from flying our planes into the trade towers? Puhleeze.

Oh yeah, that's right...it was one big conspiracy to start a war for corporate benefit. Whatever...

On the other hand, we shouldn't profile at airports because it's unconstitutional. How exactly did you want us to go about stopping them? We hadn't instituted any devices to effectively prevent the attack they perpetrated. I.e. the TSA, homeland security, etc.

However, I do see that you've instituted the keen art of liberal hindsight, and have readily determined that we had more than enough info to stop 'em anyway...

Classic.

The real way to question the validity of our preventative measures is to ask yourself if we've been attacked since 9-11. Good point. I have this Anti-tiger Rock Id like to sell you as well...I've even got proof it works!

Oh yeah, that's right...it was one big conspiracy to start a war for corporate benefit. Whatever...

I mean its just a huge coincidence that this occured when a large number of people in key positions of power have called for a "new pearl harbor" so the US could invade Iraq...
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html

I mean Bush really wanted to investigate 9-11 thats why he waited a year to investigate the biggest intelligence failure in American history and appointed the all so honest war criminal Kissenger to head the commission right? And Bush never did ask Dascle to limit the scope of the 9-11 commissions investigation did he? And its not like he tried to blow them off by only giveing them 1 hour because he had a rodeo to attend did he? Or that when forced to come back that his puppet master Cheney had to accompany him, that he wouldnt be under oath, and that only one person could take censored notes of the meeting?

So youre a coincidence threorist then?

Oh yeah and of course there never was any plans for something called "Operation Northwoods" to start a war with Cuba...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html

Or lets conpletely ignore the fact that the 9-11 commission politely called NORAD a bunch of liars as to why they hadnt intercepted the planes. Or that the man in charge of NORAD on 9-11 Englehart (sp?) was promoted and put in charge of the Northern Command (which was created in response to 9-11) and desigantes the US as a militray jurisdiction (in violation of the posse commotatus act). And that NORAD can engage any jet in any part of the US within 15 minutes if it strays off course as has happened numerous time before.

Oh and 3 steel structured buildings, for the first time ever in history collapsed from fire. And that 2 of those building were explicitly made to withstand a plane hitting them and the thired was never even damaged(WTC 7).

The biggest conspiracy theory is 'there are no conspiracies.'

Oh and its not like the Bush administration stopped the FBI from investigating Bin Laden and his connections prior to 9-11...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm

Or that the media has constantly tried to push the official story, even though it makes no sense, by endlessly trying to smear alternative theories...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

The United States promised on Dec 11, 1941 that we would never ever be sucker-punched again by a foreign power and up to 9/11 we held true to that statement.

We let our guard down that day by shutting down NORAD and not responding to the hijackers by standing down the military ... but, only on that particular day ... 9/11.

Why was it that we've only dropped our guard once in the last 60 years and that just happened to be the day the terrorists hit the towers?

Why is it we practiced defending against planes flying into buildings and then listen to Rice blatantly lie saying no one could have imagined it would happen? Then why the hell were we practicing for it?

Why did they have missle defense at the G7 in Genoa to protect bush's hotel from planes flying into it and then listen to Rice blatantly lie saying no one could imagine it would happen. Then why the hell did we have missles set up to defend against it?

Quit throwing personal attacks around and stick to the subject and start answering some questions. Don't have answers?

No surprise to me.

Dop

The war in Iraq goes in and out of favor with the American people, as does the President's popularity.

Another terrorist attack, even a small one, would make both very popular again. Why haven't these evil men allowed another? It would sure solve a lot of their problems

because their mission is accomplished

tell me mr brooks, why the flipflopping reasons for going there ? i'll tell you, they knew that they were not going to find any WMD'S, so they created a 'b PLAN......AND IT WORKED. people actually believed that right after we were bombed, instead of being mad at them, we decided to save them from saddam.......what a fuckin lie.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

Oh and 3 steel structured buildings, for the first time ever in history collapsed from fire. And that 2 of those building were explicitly made to withstand a plane hitting them and the thired was never even damaged(WTC 7).


You can't refer to history with this fire.

The design of WTC 1 & 2 was without precedent (Central core with external skeleton to save floor space). The planes they were designed to withstand, in theory, were the size of a mid 1960's plane coming into a NY area airport, not fully fueled, and slowing down for a landing.

Internal steel members were not meant to withstand speeding planes that size igniting tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The United States promised on Dec 11, 1941 that we would never ever be sucker-punched again by a foreign power and up to 9/11 we held true to that statement.

We let our guard down that day by shutting down NORAD and not responding to the hijackers by standing down the military ... but, only on that particular day ... 9/11.

Why was it that we've only dropped our guard once in the last 60 years and that just happened to be the day the terrorists hit the towers?

Why is it we practiced defending against planes flying into buildings and then listen to Rice blatantly lie saying no one could have imagined it would happen? Then why the hell were we practicing for it?

Why did they have missle defense at the G7 in Genoa to protect bush's hotel from planes flying into it and then listen to Rice blatantly lie saying no one could imagine it would happen. Then why the hell did we have missles set up to defend against it?

Quit throwing personal attacks around and stick to the subject and start answering some questions. Don't have answers?

No surprise to me.

Dop defending that asshole has got to be getting old......even to republican ultra-loyalist

There is no way under the sun that another 9/11 would make anyone in the administration popular.

It would only go to prove how incompetent this bunch is ... especially after spending enormous amounts of money, stripping away our civil and constitutional rights and killing tens of thousands of people.

Dop

On edit:

Another attack would surely kick-start the draft and we all know the chickenhawks only support this war because they and their kids are not doing the fighting. Given the chance they might have to step up to the plate, watch them run for cover. ROTF.

Dop again

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Do you assholes have the slightest clue how many warnings they receive EACH DAY? It's purely half-witted to think that every individual threat is isolated, looked into, and completely dispelled when it's just not practical or financially feasible to do it.
Ah, yes!! Another fine-example of Allowing The Marketplace To Regulate Itself!!! :@@:

*

Red flags. "In the months before Sept. 11, the FAA issued 52 intelligence reports (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usfaa114141640feb11,0,891124.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines) that mentioned Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Five mentioned hijacking."

*

"Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush Administration's dilatory response. Clarke's paper, says an official, "was a Clinton proposal. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,333835,00.html)" Keeping Clarke around was one thing; buying into the analysis of an Administration that the Bush team considered feckless and naive was quite another. So Rice instructed Clarke to initiate a new "policy review process" on the terrorism threat. Clarke dived into yet another round of meetings. And his proposals were nibbled nearly to death." :@@:

Clarke told the truth -- Rice lied and she lied under oath.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/11/911.memo.ap/index.html

Dop

Originally posted by Brooks
Internal steel members were not meant to withstand speeding planes that size igniting tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel.
My first cousin, who's a structural engineer, headed up the team of engineers who were at ground zero three days after the incident, and he told me that it was, without doubt, the burning jet fuel that caused the towers to fall. The temperatures were so hot, they literally liquefied the rebar, steel, and structural cross members that held the building together. When that latticework failed, the building fell from the domino effect of floors hitting one another in succession.

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C, 97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C, 349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C, 500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C, 1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C] Nitrogen 1,038 Water Vapor 1,690 Carbon Dioxide 845 Lightweight Concrete 800 Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C, 97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C, 349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C, 500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C, 1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25) = (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules = 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000 1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

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

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

Why do you think they collapsed then?

PS - If "the media" lied, then where did you get your information? Fox Mulder?

That post is from a web article ... and it's been vetted so don't say it's not factual ... it is scientifically very accurate.

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm389865.html

There are many sites that show the same data ... google 'em

But because it's a little over the top for the average reader, in a nutshell it goes like this ...

Steel (depending on alloy) melts at ~2500 deg. F. and jet fuel which is very similar to kerosene burns at only a few hundred degrees. No way could jet fuel create the heat to melt steel nor could it meet the burning duration that would be required.

Dop

The steel didn't need to melt to be compromised. It had to be just soft enough so as not to support one million tons. For example, Silly Putty wouldn't be considered "melted".

If this whole scenario depended on 2500 degrees, that temperature wasn't actually necessary.

It wasn't just jet fuel. It was tons of flammable material in the world's biggest flue.

(For the sake of the discussion I won't mock your source website)

I just read that posted site. I have nothing invested into whether or not they collapsed ultimately because of the collision of the fuel. It doesn't matter to me.

Is there a conspiracy I'm missing here?

I'm only posting the facts -- the cause and effects as dictated by classical physics. No more no less.

I too have nothing invested in why or how the twin towers collapsed -- I care about more important issues like the surfing conditions for the weekend. ROTF.

Dop

Brooks - maybe you missed the memo released by the guy from Underwriters Labrotories (you know the lil UL on everything you buy) that said no way would the fires comprimise the high grade steel in the slightest.

There is still easier points to make.

Asymetrical damage caused a symetrical fall. Impossible and unheard of. Theres a reason why people hire demolition companies instead of just flying jets into buildings when they want to bring them down.

Also, the pro-media/government theorist in here have failed to address what the hell happned to WTC7. Also for comparison a similar building built around the same time in venezuela burned for 2 days straight with no damage to the infrastructure and no collapse.

On that fire - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.html

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'm only posting the facts -- the cause and effects as dictated by classical physics. No more no less.
Ah, I see...you’re a trained physicists now, with an in depth understanding of how thermodynamics can play a roll in collapsing building structures. That's impressive, Dop.

NOTE: You, too, 500!

Cheap shot praetorian.

I never claimed that and I never implied that.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Steel (depending on alloy) melts at ~2500 deg. F. and jet fuel which is very similar to kerosene burns at only a few hundred degrees. No way could jet fuel create the heat to melt steel nor could it meet the burning duration that would be required.

Not only is melting not not needed, the temperature doesn't need to be anywhere near melting in order to make dramatic changes in the strength of metals. Not only did I take an entire college class in this crap but I did a lab wherein we took steel bars and tossed them in ovens and water baths of different temperatures and then tested the strength with dramatically different results from just short times at moderate heat. Not to mention that while steel heated to a very high temperature may not bend very much, but place many tons of concrete on top of that steel and it will bend without any heat at all.

Things burn at different temperatures depending on the circumstances. Inject oxygen into coal and the temperatures will skyrocket. Oxygen starved housefires can reach insane temperatures before flashing over. A mist of fuel burns at a different temperature than a pool of fuel.

The WTC was designed to absorb a hit from a 707. Burning fuel was never taken into consideration. The 767s that hit it were not only much larger than a 707 but (obviously) had lots of fuel that was not accounted for in the design.

You know, there was a great Discovery Channel special on this, but I suppose it must be false because it didn't come from some person on the internet determined to prove something he had already decided before looking at the evidence.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Clarke told the truth -- Rice lied and she lied under oath.
Whew!!!!

It's a good thing she didn't lie about SEX!!!!

Then she'd REALLY be in big trouble!!!!!! :@@:

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Then she'd REALLY be in big trouble!!!!!! :@@:
Why, when you can't state that she lied with any certainty. You have no idea what she knew at the time of her testimony. Clinton, on the other hand, definitively lied on stand, knew he was lying, was caught lying, admitted it, and was still able to keep his job.

What's your point here?

Originally posted by LionelHutz

The WTC was designed to absorb a hit from a 707. Burning fuel was never taken into consideration.

Ok.

Let's review that statement.

The designers went to the trouble --no doubt a great deal of trouble-- to include in the design of the buildings some protection against a possible airliner crash into the building.

BUT --- according to the second part of your assertion--- the designers did NOT ever include the thousands of gallons of FUEL that an airliner would be carrying in the equation of what damage the airliner crash in question would cause to the structure.

What happened there, in your estimation, Lionel?

Did the designers not KNOW that large airliners like the 707 required a huge quantity of fuel for the jet engines that propell the aircraft thru the air??!?!?!

Did the designers just FORGET that large airliners like the 707 required a huge quantity of fuel for the jet engines that propell the aircraft thru the air, and that that fuel was flammable??!?!?!

Seems to me a bit of a stretch --to put it mildly-- to assert on the one hand that an airplane crash WAS thought of in the design, but that the FUEL an aircraft carried was totally ignored in those design contingencies.

Originally posted by Brooks
(For the sake of the discussion I won't mock your source website)

Please mock away. Facts are facts regardless of what website decides to post them.

Or you can disprove my post -- it's your call.

Dop

Originally posted by Freethinker
Seems to me a bit of a stretch --to put it mildly-- to assert on the one hand that an airplane crash WAS thought of in the design, but that the FUEL an aircraft carried was totally ignored in those design contingencies.
I don't think they ignored the fact that the fuel was going to burn upon impact, FT, but I do think they assumed the possibility of the building getting hit with a fully fueled 707 wasn't likely, and most likely, if one did hit it, it would be on approach to either JFK, LaGuardia, or Newark, and consequently, it would be low on fuel, meaning there wouldn't be much to burn anyway.

Also, my guess is that the capacity of the tank in a 767 is much larger than that of a 707. Compound that with the planes size difference, weight, and speed, and KaBoom – it’s gonna fall.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Why, when you can't state that she lied with any certainty. You have no idea what she knew at the time of her testimony. Clinton, on the other hand, definitively lied on stand, knew he was lying, was caught lying, admitted it, and was still able to keep his job.
Yeah..........whatta drag you folks drew ZIP, on the ORIGINAL-charges (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/cov_12news.html).....huh??

"Four years and $40 million poured into investigating President Clinton. And all that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has to show for it, according to press reports, is a lurid tale about the president and his intern. There will reportedly be nothing in Starr's upcoming report to Congress about Whitewater, the 1980s Arkansas scandal that gave rise to Starr's gargantuan probe in the first place."

$78M to stay-the-course.

What an awfully expensive fishin' trip. :@@:

I've seen pictures of cars parked in the basement garage of WTC with aluminum rims melted away from the heat. The site burned for days. You cannot be serious that the government somehow blew up the buildings if that's what your saying. Not prepared, ... too busy fighting the Cold War, perhaps. But nothing deliberate.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
I've seen pictures of cars parked in the basement garage of WTC with aluminum rims melted away from the heat.

You're joking.........right?

Have you never seen a burnt automobile before?!?!?

Does it not register with you that a car --in the middle of a vacant lot-- if it were to catch on fire and burn all by itself, will melt the aluminum rims on it??

The fact that cars in the basement had their aluminum rims melted away in no way proves there was extreme heat involved in destroying the building above them.


Originally posted by fluffernutter
You cannot be serious that the government somehow blew up the buildings if that's what your saying.

I agree that would be an incredible claim.....but i don't think anyone here is suggesting that is the case......but still, I cannot think of any explanation for the fact that researchers have determined that it was not possible for the amount of fuel the planes were carrying to create enough heat to weaken the steel superstructure to the point of collapse.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Seems to me a bit of a stretch --to put it mildly-- to assert on the one hand that an airplane crash WAS thought of in the design, but that the FUEL an aircraft carried was totally ignored in those design contingencies.

Yeah, it seems stupid in retrospect, but that is in fact the claims of the architects.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I agree that would be an incredible claim.....but i don't think anyone here is suggesting that is the case......but still, I cannot think of any explanation for the fact that researchers have determined that it was not possible for the amount of fuel the planes were carrying to create enough heat to weaken the steel superstructure to the point of collapse.

Dop has posted pictures of what he claims is a bomb attached to the bottom of the 767 and various other conspiracy theories. Government involvement is exactly what he's claiming.

And keeping in mind of course that while the research he posted indicates that there wasn't enough heat to weaken the structure, other researchers have said that's exactly what happened, so it's not like there's universal agreement on Dop's posted research.

Put kerosene in a metal container and burn it. Does the container melt? F'n NO ... end of story -- case closed.

Whatssmadda? Kool-aid starting to taste like that kerosene I mentioned?

Bush knew -- planes flew
Bush lied -- troops died

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Or you can disprove my post -- it's your call.

Dop

Disprove what? You just got done saying yesteday that you don't care why they fell and that the surf conditions were more important to you. What happened to you overnight? Is this a lithium thing?



Will one of you Fox Mulder's out there tell me why they DID collapse. I've seen shows about professional demolitionists. They require six weeks of attaching explosives, sawing through key beams and setting off charges in the proper order. Are you saying somehow the government had that kind of access to the World Trade Center?


Please, stop telling me what DIDN'T cause the collapse. What did?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Put kerosene in a metal container and burn it. Does the container melt? F'n NO ... end of story -- case closed.



No but poke holes in the side, put a cover on it and the cover will melt. What's your point?

Bush knew...planes flew
Bush lied...troops died

I luv it Dop!!!

dop...you are ignoring a major aspect of the whole plane-flying event....


So even IF someone claims that there wasn't enough heat from the burning fuel in the plane to make the building fall.....you are ignoring the most important part.......THE IMPACT. A freakin jet ramming into the side of a building will certainly weaken any structure, in case you didn't know. So your "scientific study" may indeed be correct, but you are using it way out of context.

Decka

The towers went down in a questionable maner at best.

Our complete air defense was stood down on 9/11 -- the first and only time since Dec 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor)

Bush, live on TV (twice), claimed to see the 1st plane hit the towers, when no one had yet seen it and the tape of it happening wasn't discovered for several days afterward.

I could go on but you know the drill.

Bush knew -- planes flew

Dop

Please stop telling me what DIDN'T happen.

I like your little poems. You are the Nipsy Russel of debate.

Sounds like the facts are beginning to come into focus Brooks and you don't like them ... anyway I thought I address that post to Decka.

Dop

What could Bush possibly hope to gain by 9/11. I know y'all say the iraq war, but it has been stated in other threads, fairly uncontested that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam. Also, earlier on this thread, someone said that 9/11 would make the president very unpopular. Considering that i am typing this, i would also say that that is also fairly accurate.

One thing i have noticed on this forum is that in some cases bush is this diabolical mastermind who can contstruct these elaborate and sophisticated plans to achieve his goals, and at other times he is made out to be an illiterate moron. It's all very confusing to me.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Put kerosene in a metal container and burn it. Does the container melt? F'n NO ... end of story -- case closed.

Did you know that grain dust will explode with enough force to completely destroy a 10 story tall silo? It's all context, Dop. Depends on that amount of air present, how it's flowing, yadda, yadda, yadda. I guarantee you that same kerosene in the afterburner of an F14 and it will not only melt the container but toss the molten metal a couple of miles away. I mean honestly, you ever built a fire? Is the wood a constant temperature or do the coals glow hotter or colder depending on the circumstances?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Whatssmadda? Kool-aid starting to taste like that kerosene I mentioned?

Interesting reference, seeing as how you're the one blindly swallowing what some idiots are posting on conspiracy.net. Try taking a few college engineering courses and get back to me.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Interesting reference, seeing as how you're the one blindly swallowing what some idiots are posting on conspiracy.net. Try taking a few college engineering courses and get back to me.
Beautifully put.

Well thanks for the science lesson Mr. Wizard and your assistant Prae 'Bruce Lindgren' torian.

Bush knew -- planes flew

Dop

bush knew, planes flew. what more proof do you need then another clever slogan? The sad thing is all the left can come up with these days are clever slogans and photo shop pictures to make bush look like a monkey. Oh, and we cant forget the always popular protest chants. you know your side has won when the oppostion resorts to these tactics. Its clear their message alone is not good enough to stand on its own, so these petty slogans, chants and cartoons start popping up.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush knew -- planes flew

Dop
And that's all there is to it folks. Who needs actual proof when you can just rhyme words to give your argument that extra-special, 'you can't debate me' zeal?

Serious question for the bushbots on 9/11 ...

Why did Bush fight so hard to stop any investigation into the 9/11 attacks?

Just asking.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

and since bush fought so hard against the 9-11 investigation that means he not only knew about it, but probably orchestrated it too so that he could invade Iraq and make halliburton rich

and since bush fought so hard against the 9-11 investigation that means he not only knew about it, but probably orchestrated it too so that he could invade Iraq and make halliburton rich Exactly right Travh...

Why wasnt there an immediate investigation? Why wait a year? Whay was Bush against an investigation? You would think he of all people would be very interested.

Why did Bush ask Dascle to limit the scope of the investigation?

Why wouldn't Bush testify under oath without his puppet master?

Why wouldnt Condi testify under oath?

Why did Bush say he say a plane hit the 1st tower before he went into the classroom before any footage was available?

Why was a War criminal Appointed to head the investigation until people complained enough to displace him?

Why was the Steal immediatly sold overseas as scrap instead of an investigation as to why it collapsed? Especially when this information could help future construction projects.

Why were there so many denials as to what information was available before the attacks?

Why was Sibel Edmounds testimony completely ignored?

Why did NORAD fail when they never have before?

Why did the guy in charge during NORADS failure to prevent the biggest disaster in American history get a promotion to the military post meant to protect the US? 2nd times the charm?

Why is ther no footage of the hijackers going through airport security?

Why would Atta use a connecting flight and risk delays and missing his flight, instead of a direct one?

Why does the FAA draft memo of what hapned on the first flight say that there was a gun and a mossad agent on board? And why wont they release the final draft to dispel this suppossed rumor?

Why did the WTC7 fall at all?

Why was the only under construction side of the Pentagon with no higher ups in it at all, primarily secretaries, the one that was hit?

Why was it hit at a side angle rather than longeways where it would have been easier to hit and caused more destruction?

Why were 5 Israelis that were caught celebrating the towers collapse and were here to "document the event" and caught with $4700 and boxcutters allowed to leave the US?

Nothing in the official story addresses any of these very pertinant questions and merely pretends they dont exist.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why wasnt there an immediate investigation? Why wait a year? Whay was Bush against an investigation? You would think he of all people would be very interested.

Because Bush knew he was going to come out looking pretty bad and he wanted to get re-elected.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did Bush ask Dascle to limit the scope of the investigation?

See above.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why wouldn't Bush testify under oath without his puppet master?

Because he's not that bright.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why wouldnt Condi testify under oath?

She doesn't want her testimony used against her in some sort of trial brought by victims or rabid liberals.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did Bush say he say a plane hit the 1st tower before he went into the classroom before any footage was available?

I don't understand the question. I knew a plane hit one of the towers before I saw footage?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was a War criminal Appointed to head the investigation until people complained enough to displace him?

Who is that?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was the Steal immediatly sold overseas as scrap instead of an investigation as to why it collapsed? Especially when this information could help future construction projects.

It was checked as it was placed in the NJ field where they were placing all of the wreckage. I've seen footage, actual footage, on TV of engineers looking at distorted beams and other steel structures.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why were there so many denials as to what information was available before the attacks?

Because they knew some idiots were going to claim that a general warning about an airplane attack somewhere in the U.S. on an unspecified date should've given them warning that the targets were the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was Sibel Edmounds testimony completely ignored?

I have no idea who that is.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did NORAD fail when they never have before?

What situation has NORAD faced that is similar to this? I can't think of any.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did the guy in charge during NORADS failure to prevent the biggest disaster in American history get a promotion to the military post meant to protect the US? 2nd times the charm?

What was his job on 9/11? Was it his job to assign fighters to be on ready alert status? Were any warnings passed on to him letting him know that 9/11 was the day? Or that there was even a threat from aircraft?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why is ther no footage of the hijackers going through airport security?

I've repeated seen footage of Atta and one other guy going through the metal detectors at the airport. I think it was in Maine?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why would Atta use a connecting flight and risk delays and missing his flight, instead of a direct one?

Because security was known to be crappier at smaller U.S. airports.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why does the FAA draft memo of what hapned on the first flight say that there was a gun and a mossad agent on board? And why wont they release the final draft to dispel this suppossed rumor?

I've never heard of such a thing. Where is there a copy of the draft that I can read?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did the WTC7 fall at all?

It was heavily damaged when two 110 story towers collapsed around it.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was the only under construction side of the Pentagon with no higher ups in it at all, primarily secretaries, the one that was hit?

Random chance.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was it hit at a side angle rather than longeways where it would have been easier to hit and caused more destruction?

The airplane wouldn't be able to penetrate if it hit longways.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why were 5 Israelis that were caught celebrating the towers collapse and were here to "document the event" and caught with $4700 and boxcutters allowed to leave the US?

I've never heard such a thing.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Nothing in the official story addresses any of these very pertinant questions and merely pretends they dont exist.

I've got questions of my own:

How do aircraft that are in active use at least 18 hours a day every single day get wired for remote controls or bombs or whatever without being missed? How does no one in maintenance notice the new additions to the wiring? How does one taxi an aircraft around incredibly busy airports without anyone noticing that there's no pilot on board? How do you push an airplane back from the gate without the gate agents noticing that they never loaded anyone on board? How does a remote control pilot OK the fuel delivery slip that is shown to every pilot before pushback?

If government aircraft were used instead, how were they traded with the United and AA aircraft without being noticed? What happened to the UA and AA aircraft? How come no one has noticed that those airframes are still in existance? Why have none of the parts shown up in the used parts market? Why haven't any maintenance personnel noticed parts that were supposedly destroyed suddenly back in inventory? Why haven't any government maintenance personnel noticed that every single part on their airplane was suddenly replaced by parts that were supposedly on an AA or UA airplane destroyed on 9/11? Alternatively, if replacement government airplanes were crashed, and the original AA and UA airplanes destroyed, how come no one has noticed an extra four missing airframes?

How does the government keep all of this under wraps, keeping in mind the massive number of people on all levels that would need to be involved, without any person of conscience coming forward with any reliable evidence that this was a conspiracy. And keeping in mind that our government couldn't even keep the atomic bomb a secret until the end of WWII?

Do you have any idea how hard it is to fly something as large as a 757/767 into a building by remote control? Precision flying is hard to do by remote control. Note that current UAVs fly in nice straight lines over sparsely traveled airways and use automated landing systems to get back on the ground.

Although you didn't ask me Lionel, I'll take a shot at answering a couple of your questions/doubts.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did Bush say he say a plane hit the 1st tower before he went into the classroom before any footage was available?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand the question. I knew a plane hit one of the towers before I saw footage?

=========================

Bush twice made comments live on TV that he had seen the 1st plane crash into the WTC. At the time he said that ... there was no known footage of the 1st plane hitting the tower so it would have been impossible for him to see it, notwithstanding he was 1200 miles away from NYC.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was a War criminal Appointed to head the investigation until people complained enough to displace him?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is that?

==================

I think 500lb is referring to Kissinger.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why was Sibel Edmounds testimony completely ignored?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea who that is.

====================

Sibel Edmunds is the woman that worked for the fbi translators (or similar) dept and has the proof that bush knew the attacks were coming. She is currently lives 24/7 under government sequester/gag-order. If she ever decides to go rogue ... the truth will come out. Watch for her to be another baxter.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Why did NORAD fail when they never have before?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What situation has NORAD faced that is similar to this? I can't think of any.

====================

The united states promised back in 1941 after pearl harbor that we would never again be sucker punched. NORAD is (was) our first line of defense and the one we count on to keep that promise. 9/11 is the only time in 60 years that NORAD could not respond to an attack. Someone had to tell NORAD to shut down. Simple as that.

Dop

But pearl harbor was an exterior attack, not a dometic one. And also, who is going to give the order to shoot down commercial airliners???

If NORAD started shooting down comercial airliners on 9-11, and not one plane hit a building, these same jokers would have a list of links proving how there were important people or documents on those planes that were damaging to the Bush adminstration and Cheney had them shot down.

Part of their proof would say "How come NORAD decided to shoot down 4 comercial airliners in one day? They have never done that before, it has to mean those planes had something important on them that nobody wanted anybody to see. Why would the governemt shoot down planes that were simply hijacked?"

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The united states promised back in 1941 after pearl harbor that we would never again be sucker punched. NORAD is (was) our first line of defense and the one we count on to keep that promise. 9/11 is the only time in 60 years that NORAD could not respond to an attack. Someone had to tell NORAD to shut down. Simple as that.

First off, thanks for the answers to the above questions.

But for the NORAD thing, there haven't been any other attacks. Yeah, the USSR liked to send the occasional bomber towards Alaska to see what we'd do, but there was never any sort of full-on attack that needed repelling. Not even a single fighter plane trying to penetrate below the radar. At least not that I've ever heard of. Secondly, NORAD was oriented towards attacks from foreign countries where you had plenty of time to respond before they got here. Not oriented towards attacks originating internally that were already underway when they were notified. Finally, the readiness posture of NORAD would've been quite different during the midst of the Cold War than it was 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.

My point, Lionel, was that NORAD defense was not available that day ... or so they tell us. Seems to me that mistake qualifies as dropping your guard big time.

Dop

Dop, seriously, if NORAD had shot down 4 comercial airliners that day, wold you have believed the adminstration when they said that those airlines were hijacked and had become suicide planes that were bound to take out the twin towers and the pentagon? I highly doubt it. Your spin machine would have been spinning 100 MPH the other direction, going on and on about what was REALLY in those planes that they neded to be shot down.

Trav

Fair question ... and yes, there would have been conspiracy theories regardless of how events turned out that day ... I won't argue with that.

OTOH, I would be all on the side of this administration 9/11-wise if and it's a big if ...

IF they had not fought against an immediate 9/11 investigation

IF they had not used it as leverate to pass the HSA and infringe on our rights.

IF they could explain why there were no airplane parts at the Pentagon scene and why was there no footage of the plane that flew into the pentagon ... I should buy the fact that our war room and one of the most top secret buildings on the planet didn't have even one security camera scanning the grounds? That's a tough one to swallow. Even you have to admit that.

There's many more IF's but we've been over that.

This administration has done nothing to make me want to trust what they say. In fact, they have done just the opposite.

Dop

They shot down one plane that day but they were nice and gave credit to some "martyrs".

Lionel all of your questions rest on the bogus 9-11 story. Its called a straw man. Plausible theories exist; therefore create completely stupid ones and promote them so that thats all the average joe hears about. I posted a link towards the beginning that talks shit about the "theories" you mentioned.

Anyway look around here a bit. Its a 9-11 timeline following all the events that lead up to and came after 9-11 complete with links to all sources. I reference it later in this post.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/AAcoverup.html

Because Bush knew he was going to come out looking pretty bad and he wanted to get re-elected.
See above.
This alone then should be enough to convince you that Bush IS anti-American. The fact that he play political games with american lives is dispicable. Especially because he plays up the event like it was some sort of victory. This shames the memory of those that were killed that day. Especially if some higher ups were directly responsible for such an occurence. You assume hes honestly hiding someone, I assume its with ill-intent. Either way its anti-american.

Because he's not that bright.
This shouldnt be a factor in his testimony unless hes got something to hide.

What was his job on 9/11? Was it his job to assign fighters to be on ready alert status? Were any warnings passed on to him letting him know that 9/11 was the day? Or that there was even a threat from aircraft? Englehart was in charge of NORAD on 9-11. NORADS sole mission to protect Americas airspace. They have made plenty of interceptions of planes that have strayed a little off course. This man failed and in response the US created the Northern Coammand ( a military designation for the US in violation of the posse comitatus act.) BushCo then appointed this man who failed to protect us on 9-11 to protect us under NorthCom. Why the promotion? Look at this heading under the timeline :"September 11-16, 2001"

Heres the thing about the guy getting shot. Its under "Sept 11 2001(x)" I usually trust FTW but am looking for more corroboration.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/images/faa911memo.jpg

Also go to "September 16-23, 2001" At least 6 of the hijackers are still alive. Obviously they werent suicidal terrorists.

BTW heres where DOP and I disagree. I think a plane did hit the pentagon. They had already prven they were willing to sacrifice American lives for this cause why risk screwing it up for no apparent reason.

Dop what is the motivation for no plane to be used on the pentagon?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
This alone then should be enough to convince you that Bush IS anti-American. The fact that he play political games with american lives is dispicable. Especially because he plays up the event like it was some sort of victory. This shames the memory of those that were killed that day. Especially if some higher ups were directly responsible for such an occurence. You assume hes honestly hiding someone, I assume its with ill-intent. Either way its anti-american.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with being anti-American, and besides, who appointed you an authority on determining what is, Mr. death to Americans? Just because he opted to keep his mouth shut doesn't incriminate him of anything, and miraculously, you're the one waxing about "strawman" arguments. Amazing.
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
This shouldnt be a factor in his testimony unless hes got something to hide.
Bullshit. If you really believe that, then I sincerely hope you never have to take the witness stand. Any proficient attorney can take testimony and bend it to fit any agenda at will. Anyone with an IQ north of a pincushion could readily determine that they had bated questions DESIGNED to incriminate wrongdoing on the side of our government. It was only the biggest atrocity to hit our soil since Pearl Harbor, and to believe that his testimony would be treated as purely casual and benign is ill-conceived, to say the least.

My point 500 is more physical than ideological.

If a plane hits a building, or crashes in a field or is shot out of the air by a missle (ask Gary Powers) -- pieces of the plane are found and then the plane is reassembled for an investigation. The plane pieces don't just up and disappear into thin air. Chrissakes, even the Lockerbie plane had pieces remaining.

Where were the plane parts from the petntagon crash and please don't point to that bogus pic that shows an investigator with an engine part on the pentagon lawn -- that was already debunked as a part from a 737 ... ROTFLMAO

Simple question ... where did the parts go? No one seems to be able to answer that question.

Dop

What exactly are you suggesting, Dop? Do you, or do you not, believe a plane that struck the Pentagon, and if not, then what did the demolition of an entirely new wing accomplish? If he were looking to rile people into battle, I'd of thought dropping both towers would've been sufficient.

Please tell me what you really believe happened at the Pentagon.

I don't know what to believe but I do know that even though I may have fallen off a turnip truck, that truck did not run me over.

There should have been plane wreckage in and around the scene and there should have been tons of security cameras that caught the incident on video. A bad guy holds up the 7-11 and it's on video -- a major attack on our war room and no video. Dudes and dudettes, this one is Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard for me to swallow. No video, nothing, nada, nichts, nyet, othingnay ...

All I'm asking for is a reasonable explanation and I will buy into the plane/pentagon incident.

Dop

I certainly don't know, so excuse me for speaking out of school, but maybe there was video of the incident, and due to the nature of what's exposed (for example, the outer wall thickness, structural vulnerability, violent deaths, etc., etc.), the government sequestered and quarantined the tapes in an effort to minimize their exposure. Of course, the other alternative is to believe they blew it up intentionally, made a flight disappear, and doctored their findings. With the number of people they contracted to rebuild it, I find it difficult to believe they could cover it up. Either way, it's amazing it happened.

Could be prae ... not discounting anything. One more thought ... remember when the SST went down in London (Paris??? or wherever) and there were several onlookers that witnessed the event and even 1 or more had actual video?

The same thing should have happened at the pentagon crash ... it sits directly off a major freeway ... someone would have seen something. Again, nothing.

No video, no eye witnesses, no one heard anything, no one knows anything ... doesn't add up.

Dop

I do see your point, however, it is possible that no one witnessed the incident, albeit not very likely. To be completely frank, it does look somewhat fishy. I can't explain it, but I find it really hard to believe that if our government was involved, they orchestrated it with that degree of success. That's a lot of wool to pull over people's eyes. Jmo.

I do see your point, however, it is possible that no one witnessed the incident, albeit not very likely. To be completely frank, it does look somewhat fishy. I can't explain it, but I find it really hard to believe that if our government was involved, they orchestrated it with that degree of success. That's a lot of wool to pull over people's eyes. Jmo. I have to agree... but apply 'truth' to even just 1/4 of what Dop and Guerilla are claiming and you've got a head scratcher. This is pretty much the same conclusion I drew after watching Moore's Fahrenheit. If even 1/4 of it is truth... The "what if's" are getting harder to dismiss. PNAC for instance.

dop, you cant say there are NO eyewitnesses, because you have no idea. another thing is, what happened to the plane? what blew up the building? I have heard all the theorys and none of them account for either of these. The only way to beleive this is all a conspiracy is to believe the entire 9-11 attack was orchestrated by the US government, and I cant believe that. OUr government is to incompetant to pull off something that big and clandestine right here in our own country. They would have to kill off tens of thousands of eyewitnesses and workers and contractors and all sorts of people. not possible. Hard Copy or Micheal Moore would have enough money to make anyone scared of retribution tell the tale.

OUr government is to incompetant to pull off something that big and clandestine right here in our own country. I just noted this date on the calendar, BTW Trav. And although I do agree with you (to a point) who's to say that it can't happen? Hell, they pulled Florida and Ohio out of their ass... :)

I jumped in this thread trav with a simple and straight forward question ... "why was there no plane wreckage" ...

and I pointed out how I've been asking this question and so far no one has an answer ... if there was no plane wreckage, there was no plane ... that part is pretty simple.

so one more time "why was there no plane wreckage"

Dop

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR A LONG TIME. MY UNCLE VOTED REPUBLICAN, AND WHEN I MENTIONED IT TO HIM, IT STUNNED HIM, AND HE'S A MILLIONAIRE....

Im still waiting to hear the nay sayers to even acknowledge that WTC7 collapsed for absolutly no reason.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Im still waiting to hear the nay sayers to even acknowledge that WTC7 collapsed for absolutly no reason.

It's kind of hard to get any information from which to make a judgment when all of the websites out there are from kooky conspiracy-theorists.

yeah I mean if I dont get my news in 7 second sound bites I find it too hard to understand too.....

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
yeah I mean if I dont get my news in 7 second sound bites I find it too hard to understand too.....

Can't engage in intelligent debate, huh? Point me to an unbiased website explaining the collapse of Building 7 and I'll be happy to debate or agree with you.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Im still waiting to hear the nay sayers to even acknowledge that WTC7 collapsed for absolutly no reason.

I thought you were claiming there was a reason...are you suggesting it just fell down from some unknown, mysterious cause?

Yes, he appears to be doing exactly that. However, the gist of his arguments seem to be based on governmental impropriety, so lets just see where he takes this...

No Im asking Praet and Lionel Why WTC7 fell.

You argue that WTC1 n 2 fell due to a plane.

Why did WTC7 fall?

Point me to an unbiased websiteas to why WTC7 fell

I got a better challenge, Point me to an unbiased website. They dont exist. Every sight is biased just like every person is biased. Your demand has no answer.

Tell ya what, I'll see what I can find and get back to ya.

OK so I did my research. The conspiracy theory seems to go like this: 1) steel buildings never collapse due to fire 2) things that look like demolition squibs shot out from the building before it collapsed 3) building 7 looks like it was demolished and I should know because I watched a show about demolition on TV once so 4) therefore the government must be up to no good.

1) Two steel buildings collapsed due to fire just hours before, and coincidently, buildings that were right next door and of the same design.
2) Given the intense weight of a building, of course stuff shot out right before it collapsed. Make a little building out of popsicle sticks and hit it with a sledge hammer. Just watch how far the pieces fly.
3) It's amazing how conspiracy theorists without real jobs suddenly become experts in building demolition, materials science, and firefighting theory.
4) What exactly would the secret forces of evil behind 9/11 gain by collapsing building 7? They'd already justified the invasion of Iraq/destroyed the evidence that 9/11 was faked/killed lots of people/turned world opinion in favor of Israel/whatever.

If anyone cares to debate the bomb that was supposedly attached to the bottom of one of the planes, I'd love to weigh in on that too.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It's amazing how conspiracy theorists without real jobs suddenly become experts in building demolition, materials science, and firefighting theory.
No kidding.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
What exactly would the secret forces of evil behind 9/11 gain by collapsing building 7? They'd already justified the invasion of Iraq/destroyed the evidence that 9/11 was faked/killed lots of people/turned world opinion in favor of Israel/whatever.
This is exactly what I've been saying...

I'd like to know why there wasn't anything left of the planes and, IIRC, the black boxes, yet one of the hijacker's passports (Atta?) was found in or near the scene in pristine condition -- almost immediately after the incident ...

Gawd -- it takes some serious kool-aid to believe that one.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'd like to know why there wasn't anything left of the planes and, IIRC, the black boxes, yet one of the hijacker's passports (Atta?) was found in or near the scene in pristine condition -- almost immediately after the incident ...

Gawd -- it takes some serious kool-aid to believe that one.

Dop

Well dop, those are intreresting questions, but I have to ask, if as you say, there wasn't "anything left of the planes"...what do you think happened to the aircraft?

Where did you get the info that there wasn't anything left of them?

As far as the passport...have you ever seen pictures of boards or straws driven through trees by a tornado? It takes some serious kool-aid to believe that happens too...but it does.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'd like to know why there wasn't anything left of the planes and, IIRC, the black boxes, yet one of the hijacker's passports (Atta?) was found in or near the scene in pristine condition -- almost immediately after the incident ...

My friend's sister died rear-ending a truck. They found the oil change sticker that was in the corner of the windshield neatly attached to the rear axle of the truck. No kool-aid was involved. Strange things do happen.

Launch a car into a brick wall at 200mph and watch it get completely obliterated. Now do the same with a passport. It probably flutter to a stop and fall straight down before it even hit the wall.

Still want to debate the bomb on the bottom of the airplane?

You don't find anything strange about the fact the only passport found was that of the lead hijacker? You're easily fooled.

I believe it was a hump on the bottom of the plane ... so go ahead and start the debate as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You don't find anything strange about the fact the only passport found was that of the lead hijacker? You're easily fooled.

Well, one of us is. And I haven't seen anything that says it was the only passport found.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I believe it was a hump on the bottom of the plane ... so go ahead and start the debate as soon as you stop putting words in my mouth.

Well, if you didn't say it was a bomb, I apologize. The short version goes like this: there's no way in hell no one would notice a big-ass hump on the bottom of a commercial airliner, what with the refuelers, baggage handlers, ground crew, the pilot doing the walk-around, other pilots, the air traffic controllers, not to mention a few airplane nerds such as myself in the terminal not noticing. So it must have been a government plane. And if it was a government plane, it wouldn't have any passengers or cargo, so why the hell would anyone bother building a hump when you have huge amounts of room inside the plane to put it? Especially when people would see something on the outside of the airplane.

AFAIK -- it was the only passport recovered -- in fact, it might have been the only thing recovered ... geeesh not much left after a blast strong enough to bring down one of the tallest buildings in the world ...

So I guess the argument goes like this ... the plane had enough fuel and kenetic energy to bring down a monster building even facing the odds of defying classical physics yet that same blast couldn't destroy a paper/plastic passport. Uh ... yuh, sure.

There's footage of the hump-belly plane ... I'll dig it out if you haven't seen it and are interested in doing so.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
AFAIK -- it was the only passport recovered -- in fact, it might have been the only thing recovered ... geeesh not much left after a blast strong enough to bring down one of the tallest buildings in the world ...

Freakish things happen in accidents Dop.

So I guess the argument goes like this ... the plane had enough fuel and kenetic energy to bring down a monster building even facing the odds of defying classical physics yet that same blast couldn't destroy a paper/plastic passport. Uh ... yuh, sure.

First of all, the buildings weren't brought down by kinetic energy they were brought down by fire. If it had been the result of kinetic energy, they would have collapsed immediately after the impact of the aircraft, and they would have behaved like trees receiving the final ax blow.

Secondly, I have no idea why you suggest the buildings collapse "defied classical physics".

Finally, the only website I could find that talked specifically about Atta's passport being found was rense.com...not a terribly reliable site, but some of the others who mentioned passports also claimed that seven of the hijackers were alive and well and living overseas...maybe that explains the passport.

There's footage of the hump-belly plane ... I'll dig it out if you haven't seen it and are interested in doing so.

Dop

I'd like to see it.

I'll look around for the footage of the hump-belly and post it (if I'm successful) ..

I posted it here once before but don't have a clue when or where.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
I'll look around for the footage of the hump-belly and post it (if I'm successful) ..
Dop

Any "hump" being there or not pales in comparison to the known fact that BushCo was apprised in detail as to the fact that OBL intended to attack major landmarks in this country using highjacked airliners.....which the Bushco people later LIED THRU THEIR GOPDDAMNED TEETH about having any knowledge of, without ever once being called on those blatant LIES by our so-called "liberal" Media.

"Liberal Media" my ass.

_________________________________

Perhaps the most dispiriting aspect of the whole sorry chapter has been the collapse of national memory and accountability. One outrage follows the next with dreamlike regularity, lies about 9/11 to revelations about Ahmed Chalabi to Joseph Wilson to cooked intelligence reports to Abu Ghraib to illegal detentions to lost explosives, and nothing ever happens, and none of the Rightwing perpetrators are ever punished or held accountable. In an age of remote-control war, where nothing is asked of Americans except that they be afraid on command, the death of responsibility offers a happy ending to all -- except for those killed in Iraq.

And this white house will never be called on anything by the media they now controll 100% -- I.E. as we speak, there is a scandal concerning a fake journalist, inside the white house with leveraged credentials, possibly involved in a gay prostitution/blackmail-for-sensitive/top-secret information which may have led to the outing of one of our CIA NOC agents and untold number of consequential deaths ..

and not a word from our librul media

Dop

Two steel buildings collapsed due to fire just hours before, and coincidently, buildings that were right next door and of the same design. I thought you said they collapsed because they were hit by giant planes?


Here ya go. A steel building that burned for 3 times longer than WTC7. It was built within 2 years and was taller than WTC7. It was also built in venezuala where there are far laxer building requirements.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

Are you aware the governemnt had numerous offices in WTC7? If there was evidence of government colusion in 9-11 what would be the best way to cover it up? Blow up a building over it seems to be a pretty good one to me.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I thought you said they collapsed because they were hit by giant planes?

How else would the fuel get there?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Here ya go. A steel building that burned for 3 times longer than WTC7. It was built within 2 years and was taller than WTC7. It was also built in venezuala where there are far laxer building requirements.

As it's been noted several times before, the construction of the WTC towers was different than most steel buildings. Most buildings have a strong central core with thicker beams cantalevered out from there supporting the floors. The WTC got most of its strength from the closely spaced outer steel columns, with (relatively) thin beams supporting the floors. It's those beams that distorted due to the fire.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Are you aware the governemnt had numerous offices in WTC7?

You're telling me that the government planned the most criminal act in the history of this country in a branch office in New York? That would be an incredibly risky and stupid decision by people supposedly smart enough to pull off this conspiracy.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
If there was evidence of government colusion in 9-11 what would be the best way to cover it up?

Burn the papers in an incinerator where you can be absolutely sure all of the incriminating evidence is destroyed.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Blow up a building over it seems to be a pretty good one to me.

Pretty damn unreliable way to make sure all of your documents get destroyed. Especially if you're keeping your documents in a safe. But I guess they'd probably just have those laying around for anyone to look at, right?

Do you bother to think any of this through?

Folks, I'm just a simple human of little importance, but I am nonetheless gifted with the usual dose of common sense. Rightly or wrongly, it tells me that there is no particular overt or specific conspiracy; none is needed despite neocons' deprincipled goals. And it tells me that the planes and fuel could certainly have caused the towers to collapse.

My assertion, as you can see, is of 2 disciplines: geopolitics and physics.

Geopolitics.
The neocons have goals. They came in with goals, as can be seen by the influence of the "New American Century" organization. They like to support businesses, big ones, because that's what power does, support itself and each other, especially at the top where there is more to lose. And at this point in history, it is done mainly through business, because that is where we as citizens have beaten it back to over the course of many pseudo- and underreported revolutions.

But the players in big power still need opportunitybecause they are still humans. Science fiction notwithstanding as a warning, we still live in the present. So the big players need opportunity and the best they can do is earn their salaries by setting upthe conditions by which favorable events happen; gently influencingthings to go their way. Trying to do it overtly can get them in trouble by exposing the man behind the curtain too much. You may be thinking that Bush acts fairly overt about stuff. True. But he knows how much and in what areas he can get away with it. He's paid to know. You'll notice that it's general stuff, like constantly repeating the womd's assertion, by using other slogans. He knows that he can use the media to divide and conquer in this day and age, and he cuts it close just so that he's not wasting any overkill on policy that his base doesn't support.

He simply doesn't need highly specific conspiracies. He (they) have a compliancy instead. Conspiracies are risky, and so run a high chance of going wrong or backfiring. Or of just not particularly working and being a big waste of time, like JFK's assassination. It's far more dependable to just flood the air with fashionable political culture, and then the nuts and bolts of the country will fall in line with executing policy. After all, as dumb as the reasons for Iraq were, servicepeople still fall over themselves to get there to secure our freedoms.

And the other part of influencing the right outcomes is looking the other way about unhelpful policy questions. So it pays to ignore memos about AlQaeda's plans, about enviro concerns, about leftist principle.

It's like this: If you want to sell cars, you're not going to be successful always questioning your motives in trying to sell a little old lady a giant SUV. If you've got too much scruples, you'll be replaced by someone who IS willing to sell. In an adequately unregulated environment, the condition of the sales descends to a lowest common denominator until there is some sort of uprising.

Politics attracts salesmen-like people, who have what is called the "enterprising" personality element. It's only natural. Look at the big picture: thank your lucky stars for every tiny way in which we have indeed evolved past ancient Rome.


Physics.
I forgot whose it was, but that long post explaining the chemistry kept disclaimering with the fact that it was assuming perfect conditions. I know some of that was intended to actually permit a jet-fuel-collapse outcome, just to show how unlikely it was, but to me it instead resulted in damaging the whole logic exercise by not considering probabilities in the messy specifics.

Some of the specifics I mean are:
Not only was there jet fuel in play, but the planes had structurally damaged the building from mere impact as well. This has the effect of taking away the symmetry of the forces.

If you've ever noticed the watermark rings on a cigarette, they are intended to help the cigarette to burn evenly. Similarly the floors of the towers would unzip and domino in such a fashion as would let them collapse over their foundation mainly. Why? Each flor has its own inertia. If a floor above comes crashing down, it will be absorbed and relevelled by the floor below, even if within a few seconds the result is that the lower floor is now ready to crash. This is truly the exact same principle as the cigarette. The watermarked paper burns slower, which allows the smolder to chase around by the non-watermarked paper, thus evening back out to a full circumference within that ring.

It's not like the architects ever intended to prevent every negative outcome of a plane crash. As was mentioned above, they calculated based on not the largest planes we now have. And business dictates that you draw a line somewhere against spiraling costs due to excessive prevention.

And it's not as if you need any whole floor's worth of steel to melt to the consistency of water for the effect to begin dominoing. All you need is a few achilles' heels. This fire will set up some decent convection. You may get areas of unburnt fuel. You can end up with a blowtorch effect where some vapors suddenly access oxygen and play great heat on a critical corner connection. As someone pointed out above, it's not just steel, but all the weight from above that it is trying to carry. AND now the vectors are asymmetrical and not purely vertical anymore because of the liner's impact.

As an illustration of the vagaries and unpredictability, bear in mind that the first tower hit was the last to fall.


Folks, I'm sure their are some conspiracies now and then. But please hold them up to Occam's razor, and don't read too much wishful thinking into them. It'll just distract you from the real task at hand --

breaking out of the COMPLIANCY!