[Sitamun]

I wanted to add before I went to bed. Bush used 9/11 as one of his reasons to go after Iraq. Now, we know there is in fact no link. However, something similar has been speculated to have happened before. I've heard historians discussing the fact that FDR knew that Japan would attack the US. I can't remember at this time of nite and off the top of my head, just exactly and how much he of the details he knew. I don't know if he knew specifically it was to be Pearl Harbor or just some "strategic point". Point being that FDR allowed the attack to take place to push popular american opinion to actively support the war.

Man, the more I hear/learn/investigate the more respect I lose for this countries leaders.

[JustinFoldsFive]

Originally Posted by Sitamun

Man, the more I hear/learn/investigate the more respect I lose for this countries leaders.

Been there, done that.

But really, I know where you're coming from. I followed the same course of research not too long ago, and some of the things I discovered (from extremely credible sources, nonetheless), were just shocking. To be honest, a lot of the stuff really scared the **** out of me. It wasn't so much a single event that did it, but the combination of so many things that made me come to the realization that so much of what I had been taught was a complete fabrication. Mostly everything related to politics and world events; a farce. History; propaganda. However, I've somewhat came to terms with what I've learned. Maybe it's the pro-state conditioning I've been receiving (as we all have) since childhood. Maybe I just became too busy with my schoolwork to further dig into the topic. Whatever the reason, I deleted all my bookmarks and research, and have kept my distance for the past few months.

It's always an interesting topic to dabble in, but until I am truly able to wrap my head around the enormity of the situation, I'll just continue along with my ordinary life.

I feel kind of like Helmholtz in Brave New World, I know there is something inside of me; something to write, something to do, something to discover [in regard to this topic]...but I can't quite realize what it is.

[OMEGA]

It was all planned out by the Demons who told Nostradamus .

But as usual they were a few years off - unless Nostradamus really knew and gave us a few years head start warning.

2nd week of Sept 1999-Nostradamus predicted that a great king of terror
will come from the skies at a 45 degree angle fire would shoot up.
And that is what happened in 2001 AD.

Looks like all major events have been pre-planned for the Last 500 years.

[cursuswalker]

Originally Posted by CabinetMaker

A bunch of people who hate the U.S. for a variety of reasons hijacked four airplanes and crashed three of them into buildings and one attack was defeated by the passengers.

For the record I agree.

[psikeyhackr]

Man, the more I hear/learn/investigate the more respect I lose for this countries leaders.

Maybe you shouldn't so much lose respect for the leaders as for the followers.

And possibly for the educational system. Did you ever hear about Henry Ford donating money to the NAZI party in the 1920s?

http://reformed-theology.org/html/bo...chapter_06.htm

Did you know that Thomas Edison invented the electric chair to scare people away from AC so he could sell DC generators? That would have been a really stupid implementation of technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51BELRdkc5w

I went to college for electrical engineering but I never heard of the Current Wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents

psik

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by Sitamun

It.Melted.Steel. but several papers that just happened to give the "identities" of the terrorists survives even though its in the exact middle of an explosion that was so hot apparently it melting steel. You see absolutely nothing wrong with this? Did I mention the paper surving heat that melting steel bit? Blown clear of the aircraft??? I don't believe that for a second.

When did the steel melt? Did it melt before the collapse or after? How do you know? What evidence do have to support your position?

[CabinetMaker]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

The only thing that is obvious is that you didn't understand the purpose of the video.

The whole point of the time lapse sections was to show that a vertical flexible structure behaved differently depending on the mass and the distribution of mass. Why do you think I inserted the questions about the tons of steel and concrete on every level? The model wasn't built to be destroyed by the impacts. I was not trying to simulate the collapse. The problem with such a model is that the strength to weight of objects change as they get larger so a small model would not behave like the towers in a collapse. An ant can lift 10 times its weight easily. Can you?

That pop can example is a demonstration of how small objects do not behave like large ones when tested to destruction. Small objects operate closer to the atomic bonding level.

All the video showed is that the oscillations of the initial impact damp out at different rates based on the mass of the structure. You will note that the WTC, despite the heave structural damage, did indeed survive the initial impact of the air craft. The video also neglected the type of construction used by the WTC towers so it is not an accurate representation of even the impact response of the structure. Its sloppy science done by somebody more interested in proving a conspiracy theory rather than understanding the actual physics involved.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

Oh sure, with 100,000 tons of steel per tower that comes to 862 tons of steel per level. How high can you raise the temperature of steel in 56 MINUTES with an open carbon fire. But because we don't know the distribution of steel we don't know how much was actually on those floors. A 1360 foot skyscraper has to have more steel toward the bottom. But that raises the question of how the lighter upper portion could crush the heavier lower portion in less than 18 seconds.

Ever hear of E=1/2*m*v^2? Its the formula for energy. The m of the towers was hue so even 1/2 m is a large number. Now multiply that by the velocity squared. Evan a fairly small velocity squared times a huge mass is tremendous amount of energy. Now look at how steel structures are designed. They are designed to support a static weight with enough flexibility to sway to prevent them from breaking in the wind. In fact, the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 airliner and it withstood that impact and a little more. They are not designed to sustain a larg impact load such as the top 1/3 of the building collapsing onto a lower floor. ITs just like the pop can. Stack three on top of each other and then only damage the sides of the top one. What happens to the other two? They will also collapse.

By the way, the comment about a pop can acting on an atomic level is ignorant at best. It is acting at the same level as the model in the video. It is sill supporting real weight and it will collapse if the vertical walls of the can are distorted.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

So why can't the nation that put men on the moon tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. What kind of computers were used to help with the design work in the early 60s? They were still using core memory back then. But now we can't get a measly weight distribution.

Because it doesn't matter. If you added up all the steel, concrete, office furnishings, water and other materials on the floors you could calculate the oscillation frequency and damping factor that have nothing to do with the collapse. You could calculate the total mass above the point of failure and then use that to calculate the energy involved as the top portion of the building collapsed onto the lower structure.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

Another problem with this entire situation dragging on for SIX YEARS is that a lot of people trying to make decisions about it aren't thinking of some of the questions to ask. How do you design and build a 110 story skyscraper without determining and DOCUMENTING the steel and concrete. But the NIST doesn't even tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Then go get a copy of the plans and calculate the steel and concrete yourself. The details are all there on the plans and I have seen some plans on the internet. Figure it out. And then what? Your oscillations change but the building still collapsed because the support structures failed, not because the building shook.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr

The 70% air business is a nice touch. That comes to 15 tons of air per floor. 15 tons of air vs 862 tons of steel but the air is real important.

Course it is. What do you thing blew the windows of the building as they collapsed? If you say explosives then do you think that tornadoes and hurricanes are government cover ups for elite strike teams to go around with explosives blowing up peoples houses and businesses?

[Army of One]

Originally Posted by JustinFoldsFive

One aspect of this debate I cannot stand is when those who object to the "9/11 Truth" movement contend that conspiracy theorists are disrespecting those who died on 9/11 by questioning our government's official explanation. This is completely ridiculous, and is a disingenuous tactic used to prevent any meaningful dialogue from occurring. We all were devastated by 9/11, and we all feel terribly sorry for anyone who lost a family member or friend in those attacks. However, if the actual events of 9/11 greatly differed from the official government story, wouldn't we owe it to those who lost their lives to uncover the truth about the tragic event?

To some extent you are correct. Questioning the government's explanation, in and of itself, is not disrespecting the victims of 9/11. But when CTers proceed to accuse the victims of being involved in the conspiracy (which has happened many times), mock the victims for not fighting back soon enough (which has also happened at least a couple times), or accuse someone of sending their young son to die on one of the planes (which the creators of Loose Change have done), that definitely qualifies as being "disrespectful".

Originally Posted by JustinFoldsFive

There is far too much credible evidence suggesting an alternate explanation to blindly accept the government's official story.

By all means, please share some of this evidence.

Originally Posted by Sitamun

It.Melted.Steel. but several papers that just happened to give the "identities" of the terrorists survives even though its in the exact middle of an explosion that was so hot apparently it melting steel. You see absolutely nothing wrong with this? Did I mention the paper surving heat that melting steel bit? Blown clear of the aircraft??? I don't believe that for a second.

You forgot to mention a few things. First, the official account does not claim that the jet fuel melted steel (and we can certainly rule out the possibility that the jet fuel melted the steel upon impact, which was when these paper items would have been ejected from the impact site). Second, the identities of the hijackers wasn't determined by papers that happened to survive the impact (although that did offer confirmation). Third, there were many other paper items on the planes that survived, including letters from the victims.

Originally Posted by JustinFoldsFive

One strange and confounding fact about the attacks of 9/11 is that a few of the Islamic terrorists who were cited by our federal government as being on the planes that crashed into the WTC buildings...are still alive! Shortly after 9/11, a few of these suspects came forward and put to rest claims that they had been 9/11 hijackers. Yet the official story remains the same; the identities of the original 19 were never changed in future reports.

Please tell me you are not that ignorant. Check your sources. The issue of the hijackers being alive is the result of the BBC confusing their names/identities. They have acknowledged there mistake; Saudi Arabia has acknowledged that the identity of at least 15 of the hijackers is correctly listed by the FBI; Since those early reports, no has been able to locate any living hijackers again, which is odd (the BBC finds them in a few weeks, yet no one can locate them again almost 7 years later). Over all, it's a foolish theory on every level: Not only is there no proof, but it makes no sense that the U.S. would pick a bunch of real, living people to pin the attacks on, knowing that they could easily be exposed.

Originally Posted by Sitamun

This is also interesting to me. Does anyone remember that video of about a dozen guys cheering the attacks? I seem to recall being told that they were muslim. In fact turned out that they were Israelis. The video then seemed to disappear (well off the airwaves anyway).

I think you may be confused (unless it is I who is confused, then by all means correct me). There was no video that was aired of this event. There were videos of Arabs in the Middle East (Palestine, I think) that were celebrating the attack. I think the story you're referring involved reports of men acting suspiciously during the attack, who were filming the towers burning and supposed cheering/dancing. These men turned out to be Israelis, who were subsequently questioned by the authorities, then released. They returned to Israel, and later appeared on TV show there explaining what happened to them (claiming that they had decided to document the event). CTers somehow took this to mean that they had advanced knowledge of the attacks, so the Jews must be involved, when according to the facts that are available to us, at worst these guys are jerks and were taking pleasure in seeing that we had been attacked.

[Stripe]

[Army of One]

Originally Posted by Sitamun

I wanted to add before I went to bed. Bush used 9/11 as one of his reasons to go after Iraq. Now, we know there is in fact no link.

There is no doubt that Bush squeezed 9/11 for all he could. But taking advantage of that situation in no way implies guilt. In fact it seems to be the standard M.O. for politicians.

[GuySmiley]

I believe the official story.

[Granite]

I doubt much of it.

[Army of One]

Originally Posted by Granite

I doubt much of it.

Could you provide an example of parts that you doubt.

[Granite]

Originally Posted by Army of One

Could you provide an example of parts that you doubt.

Off the top of my head what raises doubts in my mind run from:

The identity of the hijackers, lack of their names on any lists of passengers, their ability to fly well if at all, the convenient discovery of Atta's passport, the wargames being run that day, the behavior of Bush and his Secret Service detail, the "orders" Cheney declared were still in effect that have never been explained, the collapse of the towers, the destruction of WTC 7, the lack of evidence linking Bin Laden to the attack, the curious case of the Pentagon attack, and the wreckage of United 93.

[JustinFoldsFive]

Evidence:

1) Failure of NORAD to engage hijacked planes.
2) Inability of steel frame structures to collapse at such (relatively) low temperatures. [Steel melts at 2750 F, the steel used in the WTC Towers was certified to withstand six continuous hours of 2000 F temperatures, jet fuel fires produce a maximum temperature of 1800 F]. However, since the jet fuel would have burned out within minutes of impact (as typically occurs during plane crashes), the steel structure wouldn't have been subject to 1800 F temperatures for very long.
3) Flight 93: Wally Miller, Somerset County coroner stated, "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there."
4) WTC 7 fell in a free-fall collapse, though it only endured minimal fire damage.
5) Lack of wreckage at Pentagon. Additionally, eye witness accounts have reported seeing a much smaller plane (than the reported 757) hitting the Pentagon [and the government refuses to release video footage of the actual crash]. All local security camera footage of the event was quickly confiscated.
6) The inexplicable way that the 9/11 hijackers' personal identification and passports were recovered a few blocks from the WTC towers within days of 9/11 (intact).
7) The manner in which the Twin Towers fell (free-fall, encountering no resistance from lower floors) is extremely uncharacteristic of structural failure.
8) Hyman Brown, civil engineer and construction manager of the WTC Towers stated that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel; and that the towers "could have easily withstood multiple airplane crashes".

There is more, but these are a few of the more thought-provoking (and shocking) pieces of evidence.

By the way, Army of One, you have great taste in hockey teams! GO PENS! (6-0!!!)