Trade center demolition

[Chris]

Quote by: ibm p.s. - chris (or anyone else), if you're curious and serious enough on this 9/11 topic, joining the private group discussion on this very forum may be a good start. after a while, you'd be easily able to tell which sources appear credible and which ones do not. btw, does the site of that maddox guy really look like anything close to a decent one?

the references, yes

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

Quote by: Wonderblob e x c e r p t title: The Twin Towers' Demolition authors: Jim Hoffman The Killer Fires Theory is Pure Fantasy The simple facts of temperatures: 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame) Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower. This is just one example that agrees with my assertion. None of the online encyclopedias that I researched suggest that steel will even begin to get soft at the combustion temperatures of jet fuel.

um hello? who said the steel had to melt?

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

Steel only had to lose its strength. not completely melt. :rolleyes:

[ibm]

and here is my 2c about conspiracy in general.

natural phenomenon may be perceived by humans as random, but even they have some inevitableness in them. in terms of political or historical events (you know, those that involve humans), one will figure that conspiracy actually happens more often than not - if one studies human history carefully.

i tend to believe jfk assasination was a conspiracy. i say "tend to", just because i don't pretend to know for sure. i am just an average citizen, with limited info source. but you'd be surprised how a conspiracy could happen with just a few really know about and plan for it. for instance, think you're just one of many who were part-taking the war games that morning as your routine job? guess what, you could've already been used as a tool and as part of this whole tragedy.

is 9/11 a conspiracy (aka an inside job)? again, i don't pretend to know with 100% confidence. but it's certainly not unimagineable. in fact, i tend to think the conspiracy theory is more convincing and logical in explaining what happened - much more so than the official story (which is nothing but another warren commission report).

my hope on 9/11 is that, we're now in the internet era. infomation flows much faster and more freely in much much larger volume than in the past. and this is a huge difference. the difficulty level for any "evil doers" (borrowed that one from gwb) to conceal the truth is much greater. maybe one day, hopefully not too far from now, the entire truth on 9/11 will be revealed; as i can say for sure the official story is nothing but a load of crap. as to why would "they" try to hide the truth from the public, i have no clue. or perhaps this is a good starting point for many of us to dig in?

[shrike]

Quote by: Chris RE the fires: The fireproofing on the steel at the WTC was blown away by the planes. the other examples of fires in skyscrapers didn't have a plane hit them at 300+ mph

Here is a debunking about WTC7 and molten steel.
Debunking 911 Conpiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - WTC 7
Debunking 911 Conpiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel

[PatrickHenry]

So what's the defender of Israeli terror doing on THIS thread?

Lies as usual? To protect the Mossad agents who cooperated in the demolitions? The ones who were released after celebrating their victory? Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ... - [Sunday Herald]

shrike, your little Zionist jig is up! Busted! Now we see how a New Pearl Harbor has resulted in the overthrow of you enemy Iraq and its reduction back to the stone age. Now you blasted Zionists have your evil sights on Iran! And a pliant US Administration to do your dirty work, and the bleeding and dying so that your nation can be master of the Middle East...

[shrike]

Quote by: PH So what's the defender of Israeli terror doing on THIS thread?

What Muslim terrorist apologist can say except personal attacks and crazy speculation with no proof?

Lies as usual? To protect the Mossad agents who cooperated in the demolitions? The ones who were released after celebrating their victory? Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ... - [Sunday Herald

Do you have any proof that they did it? People react in different manner when there are shocked. Yes US is really a police state if there were arrested based on their emotion.
Anyway you link is not saying anything like the crazy theory you presented.

[jose]

Quote by: webjedi 119 is the area code to Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11.

no its not you can check in the phone book Iran is 98, and Iraq is 964


'Man o sea' is Spanish for..."a man that is"
it does not mean that or anything


and if your going to use someone else´s words please give a reference otherwise you leave yourself open to the accusation of plagiarism




Uri Geller: The number of the fleeced

[jose]

YouTube - Fox News - 911 The Israeli Connection
carl cameron´s 4 part story, now scrubbed from fox news about Israelis spying on the US

[shrike]

Quote by: jose YouTube - Fox News - 911 The Israeli Connection carl cameron´s 4 part story, now scrubbed from fox news about Israelis spying on the US

Israel goverment does warned the US about 911.

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | Michael Meacher: This war on terrorism is bogus

[shrike]

Quote by: jose YouTube - Fox News - 911 The Israeli Connection carl cameron´s 4 part story, now scrubbed from fox news about Israelis spying on the US

According to Jose source
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks"
Case closed I think

[jose]

Quote by: shrike According to Jose source "There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9/11 attacks" Case closed I think

yea but thats fox news¨we report, you decide¨

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.

[webjedi]

Quote by: PH I believe that a coincidence of this nature is evidence of a conspiracy near the top of the US government. If you are too blind to see this then maybe you should schedule an optometry appointment.

I can see perfectly well that you believe what you are saying. Wargames go on all the time. The Russians were also conducting wargames off the coast of Alaska on 9/11 - were they in on 9/11 too?

Quote by: PH Very funny, but we are debating real events and real circumstances, buddy.

I used this example to show how people can attach inappropriate meaning to things during a crisis of conscious and see coincidences as meaningful, and therefore become incapable of reason. Here is a perfect example:

Quote by: PH "the official narrative has been used by Washington and London to wage war against innocent countries, to mass murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people, to reopen concentration camps"

This shows an obvious lack of perspective. We are fighting countries that have threatened us. Even if we had no other reason to attack them (i.e. there was no 9/11) than their threats and past actions they still would not be "innocent". Has every person killed in the War on Terror been an enemy that deserved to die? Of course not. In what war - in all of human history - can you point out to me there were not innocent people caught in the middle? So why would you think this would be any different? Need I remind you the first 3,000 casualties in this War were innocent American citizens?

I'm sorry our peace and security is unimportant to you; luckily you have no say in the matter.

And as far as invoking the horror of the Holocaust you should be ashamed of yourself! I think it is really foul to drag out the holocaust to push your political opinion. Do you have any conception of what a concentration camp is? What BS! This trivializes one of the worst things humans have ever done to each other. Obviously you have no respect for the 20 Million people killed in WWII, and therefore your compassion for all the "innocents" the Great Satan has murdered does not impress me as sincere. I think your hatred guides your thoughts and your judgement is highly suspect.

Get real with yourself. In reality this is war, not mass murder. In reality there are no concentration camps, and the people we are attacking are definitely not our friends - they want Americans to die, which means, as an American, they are my enemy. Throwing around words like "mass murder" and "concentration camps" is sensationalist propaganda - maybe it works on the weak-minded, but it certainly has no validity nor truth in fact. In your own words: "red herring, strawman, appeal to absurdity, etc. etc." In my words: crap so think your eyes are turning brown.

Let me ask you straight out: who's side are you on?

- - -

Quote by: jose and if your going to use someone else´s words please give a reference otherwise you leave yourself open to the accusation of plagiarism

I used it as an example of the loss of reason caused by trauma. This is the phenomenon of conspiracy theories. We attempt to make things fit into our view of the world no matter how far stretched it is because we cannot give up on things we have fought to believe. I would not have created something so inane myself, so rather than accusing me of plagiarism you would be accusing me of insanity. I don't know why the hell anyone would care, but I got it here: http://www.greatdreams.com/trade_numbers.htm


::

[Chris]

Looking again at the video, come on now, those little puffs of dust below the destruction wave don't = explosive. :rolleyes:

What would happen if there was tons and tons of building coming down don't you think that some pressure is going to expand the lower windows?

[webjedi]

Quote by: Blob Webjedi here is your MIT expert. MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition - Google Video If you have the courage to watch it.

"Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid." - MADDOX

Quote by: Blob Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved

Have you ever burned plastic? The smoke is dark no matter how much oxygen there is. Offices have shitloads of plastic in them. Plastic + fuel = napalm. Burns and burns and burns. That + all that compressed material and you get the fire that continued to burn at both the WTC and the Pentagon for weeks.

Watch the live broadcast video of 2 WTC - the first tower that fell - it buckled at the area of impact. (Same goes for 1 WTC, but it is easier to see in the footage of 2 WTC.) There could not have been explosives there because there was a big gaping hole. If there were explosives and detonating equipment there it would either have exploded or have been destroyed by the impact of the plane.

Furthermore, "they" planted explosives for weeks, and yet over that time hundreds of thousands of people were all over those buildings and nobody found or smelled any explosives or detonation equipment? Ludicrous. In fact, building demolition is so complex and resource intensive companies pay $Millions to have it done. It would have costs TENS of $Millions to do this to even one of the WTC buildings. You would need engineers, construction workers, a significant amount of equipment to drill concrete and huge cutters for the steel, large supplies of nitroglycerin and TNT poured into cavities drilled into the columns, etc., etc., etc. It is a hugely complex task and if it didn't work perfectly one or both of the buildings would have remained partially or even completely intact. Not to mention the fact that you would need a whole separate plan and equipment for 7 WTC b/c it was a totally different kind of building.

In fact, why completely demolish the WTC? Weren't the passengers on the planes and the deaths they caused in the building enough of a casus belli?

Why both buildings? Wouldn't 2 WTC have been enough?

Why destroy 7 WTC? And why not destroy 3, 4, 5, 6 WTC?

What about the Pentagon? Why didn't anyone find explosives at the Pentagon or any other building in Washington?

And what about Flight 93 - was it supposed to hit a building? What building and where were the explosives there? Did those buildings not need explosives for demolition but the 1, 2, and 7 WTC did?

Why would any rational human being want to give away so many chances to get caught in a huge conspiracy rather than just destroy one WTC tower? Do you honestly think that if only one of them had been destroyed we would have not gone to war? Do you really believe there is some rational objective to hijacking 4 planes? One wouldn't be enough? 2? 3? Had to be 4???

For that matter, who do you think hijacked the planes? CIA agents? What was it they were willing to die for? So that we could go to war with Iraq??? Please, spare me.

If you wanted the emotional effect there would be no point in jeopardizing the economy and if you wanted to disrupt the economy there would be no need to attack the Pentagon. It makes about as much sense as beating yourself on the head with a hammer to cure a headache.

Besides, there were so many wealthy and well-connected people that died on 9/11 that it could not have been "an inside job", somebody somewhere would have found out. Cantor Fitzgerald, for example, traded about 25% of the Treasuries market - over $2,000,000,000,000 (that's 2 Trillion) worth of business. They lost 2/3 of their employees (658 to be exact) - including the brother of the CEO. Do you have any idea how many traders, investors, businesses, heck, countries, own treasuries? And that was just one company out of hundreds headquartered at the WTC.

The 9/11 scenario would only serve someone who not only doesn't care about human life, and has plenty of money NOT tied up in investments, but also does not have friends and family or connections in the Government or Wall Street. Osama Bin Laden fits that description better than anyone else I could possibly think of, real or imagined. If you accept the fact that he claimed responsibility for it, then the case should be closed, but I realize a lot of conspiracy theory junkies think doctored videos were put out to blame him. If so there is still the fact that he threatened monumental attacks, and of course carried out several attacks (against the USS Cole, etc.), so even if you don't believe he claimed responsibility for it the evidence points to him. The evidence better fits a fictional character, of course, because you can make that character have any attribute you want in your mind, but back here in reality it is pretty obvious OBL is responsible.

Look, believe whatever makes you feel better, but the conspiracy theories I have heard are swiss cheese. If whomever you hate (Bush, the Israelis, whoever) wanted to instigate a war they could have done it in many, many other ways that would be much simpler, easier, and cost at lot less money than a giant building demolition project.

With so much evidence it could not have happened the way you suggest, that Al Qaueda had the means and the motive, and that it is beyond unlikely that rich & powerful people here in the U.S. would want to visit terrible destruction upon the whole of the country and thousands of families for some limited political objective, it is completely irrational to come to a conclusion that "9/11 was an inside job".


::

[Wonderblob]

Webjedi
Please keep trying to convince me otherwise. The last thing I want to believe is that our government was complacent in such a horrible disaster. I have sunk into a depression that is quite painful.
It is just that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I am trying to convince myself that the buildings could have come down by fire. I am not quite there yet.
What I can't get over is the smirk on W's face and the Dick from his bomb shelter telling his aides not to scramble the NORAD defenses.
My senses are quite keen when it comes to reading people and their intentions. I do feel W's intentions are subversive and he would encourage the "Rapture" scenario any way he could simply because his greed for power has overwhelmed him. He has proven his intentions to be corrupt by his complete disregard for the Constitution.

[shrike]

September 12, 2006 -- ON Feb. 7, 2005, I became a member of the Bush/Halliburton/Zionist/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy for world domination. That day, Popular Mechanics, the magazine I edit, hit newsstands with a story debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. Within hours, the online community of 9/11 conspiracy buffs - which calls itself the "9/11 Truth Movement" - was aflame with wild fantasies about me, my staff and the article we had published. Conspiracy Web sites labeled Popular Mechanics a "CIA front organization" and compared us to Nazis and war criminals. For a 104-year-old magazine about science, technology, home improvement and car maintenance, this was pretty extreme stuff. What had we done to provoke such outrage? Research. ... In every single case, we found that the very facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies are mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified. Here's one example: Meyssan and hundreds of Web sites cite an eyewitness who said the craft that hit the Pentagon looked "like a cruise missile with wings." Here's what that witness, a Washington, D.C., broadcaster named Mike Walter, actually told CNN: "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up. It's really low.' And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon." ... The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world. James B. Meigs is editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. The magazine's new book, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand up to the Facts," is just out.

I am pretty sure that no one of the 911 conspiracy theorists will not read this book. They so afraid to compromise their security
CONSPIRACY CRANKS By JAMES B. MEIGS - New York Post Online Edition: Postopinion

[brien]

Quote by: Wonderblob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I own a company that sells and services standby generators. I also know quite a bit about diesel. Its number one asset is that it is not explosive. It has to be under conditions not achievable in a building to explode even then the combustion is very slow. I can also promise you that the fuel was not stored any where near the major structural components of the building. Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. It is indisputable.

Well I own a trucking company and use diesel feul all of the time as well. Why does the FHA require flamable placards for its transportation? Look up the HM CODE It is listed as Fuel oil Class 3 Combustible So to say it is not explosive is in direct contradiction to the FHA Safety Regs. So what you wrote is simply untrue.

You wrote:[QUOTE I also know quite a bit about diesel. Its number one asset is that it is not explosive.][/quote]

Apparently you don't know enough according to the FHA.

You wrote:

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. It is indisputable

Indisputable? By whom??

You wrote:[quote][ I can also promise you that the fuel was not stored any where near the major structural components of the building. /QUOTE]

Says who, you? You, who also says diesel fuel isn't combustible?? Rudy Guiliani begs to differ with you. I heard him state catagorically that all of the twin towers fuel was stored in Bldg # 7

Sorry wonderblob, you facts don't stand up to the test of reliability.

[rez]

Quote by: Wonderblob Webjedi Please keep trying to convince me otherwise. The last thing I want to believe is that our government was complacent in such a horrible disaster. I have sunk into a depression that is quite painful. It is just that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I am trying to convince myself that the buildings could have come down by fire. I am not quite there yet. What I can't get over is the smirk on W's face and the Dick from his bomb shelter telling his aides not to scramble the NORAD defenses. My senses are quite keen when it comes to reading people and their intentions. I do feel W's intentions are subversive and he would encourage the "Rapture" scenario any way he could simply because his greed for power has overwhelmed him. He has proven his intentions to be corrupt by his complete disregard for the Constitution.

Darn, you had me up untill webjedi's most recent post. For someone so convicted to believe that the WTC's were destroyed by an American insider, you seem to be fairly ignorant towards the evidence. I would throughly enjoy for you to responed to webjedi, so I can see if your side of the debate actually holds up.

[rmnunez]

'Man o sea' is Spanish for..."a man that is" it does not mean that or anything

"Manosea" is to fondle or handle.

[Critter]

I don't have much to add, except to say that I'm SO glad to see that more and more people are getting a whiff of the shady stuff that's going on.

Now, of course I don't know all the details, and I'm not afraid to say there's a lot I don't understand, but the fact that all this is coming out, and people are realizing that something is horribly wrong with the world, is a great comfort.

[jose]

I wonder what Hugo Chavez thinks of all this?