DAMN IT!!!! Some idiot at work screwed up a bulk order and I had to stay until like 11. Will they be replaying the American Scholars Symposium 9/11 truth conference?

Actually yes, it will be playing again at 11 EST for the west coast.

Because you may not like an explanation does not make it false. When you think of the 100's of people who would have to be 'in' on 9/11 if the conspiracy theories were true and yet all we have are theories from people who are not experts but in fact unqualified to make their assumptions, the rational mind must assume that the rational and unrefuted explanation is the valid one. Event the theories don't support each other, its more of a shotgun approach where someone hopes something will stick.

So the amount of people in on a conspiracy is a good measure of it's likelyhood? How many people do you suppose knew about Watergate? How many people do you suppose knew or even know about the Kennedy assasination? For that matter, how many people know the difference between bites and bytes? 8 Mb per second download is about .95 MB per second download. That's a conspiracy to cover up the real download speed of your internet, btw.

Experts have come foraward from both sides (like global warming about 20 years ago) and some have been discredited - on both sides. The problem with the 9/11 truth movement is that there is no one explaination, and there never will be one until the ultimate truth is revealed. Some of us think that thermite charges were used, others don't. Some of us think the planes that crashed were drones, some of us don't. Some of us think that the passengers were real and some don't. There will be no concensus until more facts are uncovered. Remember, most of the stuff we have to go on is 5 years old, and new information on the subject, besides a few lame hollywood movies, is rare to say the least.

I consider my self rational because I have looked at both sides and found which makes sense to me, with my understanding of science, politics, and conspiracy theories. It just so happens that my views closely consider with the major majority of everyone else in the world.

I still fail to see which scenarios you find unlikely. I find it irrational to look for spooky men when it’s so obvious what happens when you hit a building with a plane full of fuel.

I think he was talking about Ustwo, who hasn't invested the time and energy examining both sides as you have.

If you have realplayer, you can go to www.cspan.org and replay the entire 1 hour and 45 minute show when ever you feel like it (or if you don't have cable). :) I like C-Span, it is the way TV stations should work.

Oh really? Will just because I think you are delusional doesn't mean I didn't give the devil his due and check out all the senerios. I have looked at it quite deeply as 9/11 effected me personally, so you can take your assumptions and stick it under your reynolds wrap coif.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was confused by the content of the posts you've made on the subject here on TFP.

So the first ever collapse of a skyscraper by fire happens three times in one day, hasn't happened since... that's rational. A group of students takes over several planes with only desktop weaponry, and we take a third party's word on that... rational. The entire air force is like the Keystone cops when they are most needed... rational. Screw the evidence, lets get that steel to the recyclers right away to make room... totally rational.

So , away from 9-11 and back to real life, if the cops find a dead body they cremate it right away, no need to investigate, it isn't gonna bring the victim back to life... duh! :rolleyes:

Never before has a building been hit with a plane that large and that full of fuel, or has since, its ignorant to say its never happened before therefore it can never happen ever, just plain ignorant. One of the major reasons that no fire has collapse a steel building be for the WTC, is all previous fires have struck old steel structures, WTC was one of the first to be designed with the help of computers, so if a beam needed to support 3 tons, it could support 3 tons, no more, no less, in the past, with out the aid of computers to get it right, building were designed huge redundancies, if it should need to support 3 tons, it could hold 10 tons. Hijackings occur infrequently, and before 9/11 no one thought they would ever crash a plane into a building, it was always the same drill, 'we want ____ or we kill everyone, meet our demands and they all survive'. So no one fought back, the passengers figured that if they did not resist, they'd get a free trip to some god forsaken country with out extradition rights, but they would live. If the passengers knew what was going to happen, the hijackings would not have succeeded, the passengers could have overpowered the hijackers with injuries, but overpowered nun the less. Flight 93 may have been proof of this, but what happened on flight 93 is spotty at best, and now polluted with that damn movie. As for the air force, there would have been hell to pay if they had just started shooting planes down, to sit here and say they should have done more with no one knowing what was going to happen is again ignorant of how the world really works, if they had shot down the planes, everyone would be up in arms about how are own military killed our own citizens with out trying for a peaceful solution.

There is, I am sure, a portion of our officials who knew something about 9/11 long before it happened, and they may have been involved. But we will never know the truth.

Even if the truth does come out it has been long enough and people set enough in their beliefs that it won't change a damn thing.

What do you think the "truth" will come out and we'll be able to prosecute the people? Do you think the people involved are going to stand up, admit everything and voluntarily face the consequences?

Personally, I believe that after the first WTC bombing and the USS Cole whoever wanted war in the Middle East saw that it would take something horrific to get Americans to want to go to war.

I think OKC may well have been part of their plot but they hired idiots and it fell apart before they could truly say it was "muslim" terrorists. Is there any proff of this? Nope, that's what made them (TPTB) so cunning, 100% deniability and nothing traceable to them. If you do enough research what will you find? That these "right winged, radical, white supremecists, were actually funded and had weapons sold to them by Arabs. But then again.... you have to read the right sources and not believe the mainstream press.

So is my knowing and believing this changing anything in the world? Nope. TPTB are still playing their power games and still deciding who shall live and who shall die, via war, starvation, cureable diseases, drug use, who gets rich who doesn't.... etc.

And there will always be people fighting to know the truth.

And TPTB will always have that power. The names and their purposes and what they want to do with the world will most definately change over time, but but the power will always be there and shared by a very select few. Because even after a revolution, man needs leadership and unfortunately, history has always proven the people who take that leadership, no matter how pure their heart, eventually power corrupts. May take time but it is always going to happen..... just as man revolting and fighting the power when it gets to that point.

I agree, things were known, I’d even venture to say that the relative date was known (sometime in September) how ever I don’t think the extent was known, hijacking, sure, crashing planes into the towers, not a chance.

I think that the current administration wanted war from the start; however, I don’t think they allowed the Cole to happen, quite frankly, if the sailors had felt threatened by the water craft, they would have shot it as it approached; the administration has absolutely no control over the sailors defending them selves. As for the first WTC attack, that happened during Clintons administration, who had no desire to go to war with the middle east.

Originally the media blamed middle easterners for the bombing, in response to the first WTC attack, how ever it was later determined to be Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. They had motives, all there life they had been anti government, and the happenings at Waco and ruby ridge pushed them over the edge, from pissed off to activist. As for your 'sources' please produce some so we may also read them, which are the right sources and which are wrong.

Well I finally got a hold of a decent structural engineer. Who would have guessed...he figures that 9/11 is fishy. He explained how the WTC would have had a static ratio of 5:1. In other words, if it was rated to hold 100 tons, it could theoretically support 500 tons. I keep hearing how the WTC was reduced to roughtly 60% of it's rated strength. So that's 20% strength loss. Even if the steel had been heated to 550 C, or about 1022 F, the towers would have stood. "Not only the fact that they fell, but the fact that they fell so fast is highly suspect", is what the reponse I've gotten from this engineer. He won't speculate as to how the towers fell, but suggested that the planes simply could not have been responsible.

I also found a really good page for steelwork fire resistance for anyone who's interested. http://web.archive.org/web/200308181...fire/fr006.htm

I've found that studies on parking garages could be relevant to the current discussion.
http://web.archive.org/web/200308181...arks/cp006.htm

Please note that parking garages do not have thermal insulation, like that found in the WTC. Also, parking garages do not have a fraction of the support and steel found in the WTC. The fires in the parking garages would be fueled by gas, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, hydraulic fluids, and the like can burn at a very similar temperature to airline fuel (diesel and kerosene have almost identical burning temperatures), espically over a very long period.

I still do not see how the relatively minor damage and fires could have completly demolished two of the best built, steel reinfirced buildings in the world. Maybe I'm just crazy.

your expert is missing one big part of the equation, the steel was weakened structurally like he said, however, he forgot about the thermal expansion of the metal as the horizontal beams expanded, the pushed the vertical beams out of alignment causing the collapse. think of it this way, you can stand on an empty can of soda, if you do it carefully, but one slight deformation to the side will cause the entire can to collapse under your weight.

This is an article about thermal expansion; the picture shows railroad tracks that warped from the heat on a hot day in July.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/IYear...malExpans.html

You are just guessing at all that stuff. Even if the fire was on the ground floor with 100 floors bearing down on top of it it'd be standing today if not for some trigger happy idiot at the helm.

As a guy who's been awfully close to many fuel fires i have my own ideas of how hot they get and what will and won't melt or weaken. The ideas you have would mean fire is simply not containable. Barbeques, fire places, gas and diesel engines, Bic lighters and candles would all be like bombs. It would be impossible to design a building that wouldn't collapse if your wild theories are right.

I'm off for a week, so the comebacks need not be too snappy. :)

Thermal expansion is not a wild theory of mine; it’s empirically shown time and time again in a controlled lab setting. Did you even bother to read the article about thermal expansion? If you can not even accept the simple, proven concept of thermal expansion, there is no since of discussing this with you, I guess this is why this topic has gone back into the paranoia. Please take the time and enroll in a physics class at your local community college, maybe then you will start to understand the wonderful scientific world we live in.

Willravel it’s been a pleasure discussing this with you, but I’m tired of defending simple scientific concepts here, I’d like to continue this discussion with you, if your interested, PM me

Pulling the ripcord on my Para shoot on this thread.

~Dilbert

One more before i take off ( just for a few days)

Thermal expansion? We aren't talking a steam engine here, the amount the steel beams in a building would grow is insignificant. Wind sway would move the building far more than heat.
Ever wonder why your car still fits in a parking spot when it's running and the exhaust is hot? :p

Very entertaining, 5 minute long video exchnage between Hannity & Colmes, vs.
Wisconsin PHD, Barrett:
....And this is an interesting presentation that encompasses the "theme" in almost all of my posts on TFP: (From the Psychology of 9/11 Perception)

http://www.neilslade.com/

The Amazing Brain Music Adventure... sounds reputable.

Moving on to http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topst...=92026&ntpid=0...

Wow, sounds great to a person who's never been in flight control, aviation, or the military. Unforunately aside from weather radars, and military training/testing, there are no active radar stations in the US. They use the IFF system, turn it off and the ground control simply is blind to your presence.

Besides one only has to visit the Pentagon to realize *gasp* it has no SAMs in the area.

So, he's Mystic Muslim and he had a respectable grandfather... what makes him an expert?

Vanity fair recently did an article on the NORAD tapes. To me this shows undoubtably that the people who ordered the 'drills' and their bosses are the number #1 suspects in the 9/11 attacks. Clearly the confusion from the drills and the stand downs orders fom the higher ups aare the reason why the planes hit the buildings instead of being shot down.

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

and...
Emphasis on EXERCISE. People knew about the drills that his proves they did happen.

I cannot come to any other conclusion regarding the 9/11 drills. The 9/11 commission ignoring these drills and the recent NORAD tapes imo proves they were the reason for the confusion on 9/11 and the people who held the drills need to be held responsible at the least, and most likely are actually guilty and knew what was going to happen that day. There's no other reason for the commission cover-up of these drills.

Yea cause standard protocol for a hijacked plane was to shoot it down :rolleyes:

Or maybe to scramble alert fighters? Yeah, best laid plans....

Selective quoting for the win. Lets see the rest of them shall we?

At NO point does the training exercise come into play here, in fact this shows just the opposite, but if you guys wanna see it for anything besides what it so obviously is, be my guest. Fighters WERE scrambled, but they could not find the aircraft until it was too late. Note they had 10 minutes to do this, 10, and you somehow assume they had super magic jetfighter powers that would have stopped it? Common sense needs to be applied.

Selective quoting? Clearly this guy is refering the the drills that day. I mean what else could he be talking about?

Plus theres the question at the beginning regarding real-world or exercise, unless you are implying that the drills never took place or something. I can't tell if it's that or if you are just calmly acknowleding there were drills (specifially planes into buildings CIA exercises) as if one should expect drills of the same event going on during 9/11.

Yes and it had no effect on what THEY were doing. All that proves is they had drills going, but they knew the hijacking was NOT a drill and acted to their best ability. I don't see why thats hard to understand, they knew from the moment it happened it was not a drill, so how did the drill confuse them?

Because there were drills about hijacked planes on 9/11 and then the real thing happened at that exact time PROOVES it was a conspiracy. Don't you know anything ustwo?

The sarcasm really doesn't refute anything other than show you have a difficult time facing the facts.

First of all I'm not saying this fact alone proves it was an inside job, but it's a significant point that in addition to dozens of others makes it extremely difficult to believe otherwise.

What do the drills mean in your opinion? You don't have a problem with the commission and administration totally ignoring this and saying 9/11 was above all a failure of imagination? Can you really say the drills and the 9/11 attacks were totally seperate events and keep a straight face?

As an example, it would be like the government running a mock assassination drill during the Kennedy assasination or Reagan shooting, at the exact place and exact time, have it reported casually in the news, an investigation is then conducted and this fact is totally ignored. Not only that, they would repeat ad nauseum that they had never heard their was any possibility of such a thing. Police work 101 would say that the people who ran the drills would be a prime suspect. If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it probably is.

I mean, you have got to be kididng me. How can you not at least suspect something and ask for a little bit further investigation instead of a blatent cover up. How can you contintue such unwaivering support of a government who is: A. This incompentent, or B. This evil? These are the people you trust to fight our war on terror. That is one scary thought.

Um... I dont know about you but I would be suspicious if there were multiple drills before the hijacking. That would imply that they knew about something and were preparing.

If a group of employees from a competing company practice softball for 3 months, and then you suddenly hear about an "impromptu" inter-company softball game... that would imply that they knew ahead of time of the event.

If it was the day of, that is more likely either given 2 minutes heads up or simply a coincidence.

Scholars for Truth: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

NYtimes article
August 6, 2006
9 / 11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:30 p.m. ET

Kevin Barrett believes the U.S government might have destroyed the World Trade Center. Steven Jones is researching what he calls evidence that the twin towers were brought down by explosives detonated inside them, not by hijacked airliners.

These men aren't uneducated junk scientists: Barrett will teach a class on Islam at the University of Wisconsin this fall, over the protests of more than 60 state legislators. Jones is a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University whose mainstream academic job has made him a hero to conspiracy theorists.

Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago.

The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The organization says publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. They are a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide, and some have no university affiliation. Most aren't experts in relevant fields. But some are well educated, with degrees from elite universities such as Princeton and Stanford and jobs at schools including Rice, Indiana and the University of Texas.

''Things are happening,'' said co-founder James Fetzer, a retired philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who maintains, among other claims, that some of the hijackers are still alive. ''We're going to continue to do this. Our role is to establish what really happened on 9/11.''

What really happened, the national Sept. 11 Commission concluded after 1,200 interviews, was that hijackers crashed planes into the twin towers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports that found fires caused by the crashing planes were more than sufficient to collapse the buildings.

The scholars' group rejects those conclusions. Their Web site contends the government has been dishonest. It adds: the ''World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions'' and ''the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.''

The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

But some worry the academic background of the group could do that anyway.

Members of the conspiracy community ''practically worship the ground (Jones) walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side,'' said FR Greening, a Canadian chemist who has written several papers rebutting the science used by Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. ''It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science.''

Faculty can express any opinion outside the classroom, said Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. However, ''with academic freedom comes academic responsibility. And that requires them to teach the truth of their discipline, and the truth does not include conspiracy theories, or flat Earth theories, or Holocaust denial theories.''

Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. They simply believe the government's investigation was inadequate, and maintain that questioning widely held assumptions has been part of the job of scholars for centuries.

''Tenure gives you a secure position where you can engage in controversial issues,'' Fetzer said. ''That's what you should be doing.''

But when asked what did happen in 2001, members often step outside the rigorous, data-based culture of the academy and defer to their own instincts.

Daniel Orr, a Princeton Ph.D. and widely published retired economics chair at the University of Illinois, said he knew instantly from watching the towers fall that they had been blown apart by explosives. He was reminded of watching an old housing project being destroyed in St. Louis.

David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor, acknowledges this isn't his field, but says ''I'm smart enough to know ... that fire from airplanes can't melt steel.''

When they do cite evidence, critics such as Greening contend it's junk science from fellow conspiracy theorists, dressed up in the language and format of real research to give it a sense of credibility.

Jones focuses on the relatively narrow question of whether molten metal present at the World Trade Center site after the attacks is evidence that a high-temperature incendiary called thermite, which can be used to weld or cut metal, was involved in the towers' destruction. He concludes thermite was present, throwing the government's entire explanation into question and suggesting someone might have used explosives to bring down the towers.

''I have not run into many who have read my paper and said it's just all hogwash,'' Jones said.

Judy Wood, until recently an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Clemson University, has been cited by conspiracy theorists for her arguments the buildings could not have collapsed as quickly as they did unless explosives were used.

''If the U.S. government is lying about how the buildings came down, anything else they say cannot be believed,'' she said. ''So why would they want to tell us an incorrect story if they weren't part of it?''

In fact, say Greening and other experts, the molten metal Jones cites was most likely aluminum from the planes, and any number of explanations are more likely than thermite.

And the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report describes how the buildings collapsed from the inside in a chain reaction once the floors began falling.

''We respect the opinions of others, but we just didn't see any evidence of what people are claiming,'' institute spokesman Michael Newman said.

Wisconsin officials say they do not endorse the views of Barrett, an adjunct, but after investigating concluded he would handle the material responsibly in the classroom.

That didn't mollify many state legislators.

''The general public from Maine to Oregon knows why the trade towers went down,'' said state Rep. Stephen Nass, a Republican. ''It's not a matter of unpopular ideas; it's a matter of quality education and giving students their money's worth in the classroom.''

In a July 20 letter obtained by The Associated Press in an open records request, Wisconsin Provost Patrick Farrell warned Barrett to tone down his publicity seeking, and said he would reconsider allowing Barrett to teach if he continued to identify himself with the university in his political messages.

BYU's physics department and engineering school have issued statements distancing themselves from Jones' work, but he says they have not interfered.

At Clemson, Wood did not receive tenure last year, but her former department chair, Imtiaz ul Haque, denies her accusation that it was at least partly because of her Sept. 11 views.

''Are you blackballed for delving into this topic? Oh yes,'' Wood said. ''And that is why there are so few who do. Most contracts have something to do with some government research lab. So what would that do to you? The consequences are too great for a career. But I made the choice that truth was more important.''

''If we're in higher education to be trying to encourage critical thinking,'' Wood says, ''why would we say 'believe this because everybody else does?'''

I'm not sure those Norad tapes aren't edited or falsified, even listening to what they do say is damning enough. They seem to be quite unprepared and bumbling. Their planes seem pretty slow unless the pilots had to stop for gas along the way. :)

I'm not sure how many of you melt aluminum, but to get it glowing orange it is far hotter than just a liquid state, if it were to flow out it'd be gone before ever reaching those temperatures. There is a LOT more heat than a simple combustibles fire causing that. Pressurized oxygen is what it takes me to do that, i can't get a propane torch to do it. I don't have access to any Thermite. Were oxygen tanks stored in that area in the WTC?

Amazing series of coincidences!

Well with a propane torch you also aren't using JP7 jet fuel. You also dont have enough of it to fly halfway accross the world, which the international flights would be carrying.

And as we've proven time and time again, by scientists and engineers almost unanimously worldwide that you don't need to get the steel red hot, you dont need to melt the steel to get it to fail. I wont repost, you can look it up if you want to.

Nothing to do with the melting steel, i'm talking that "stuff" flowing out of the side of the tower again. It's shown glowing orange and dripping off silver further down... ie: aluminum, lead, solder, etc.

A propane torch doesn't matter if you have a pocket lighter sized tank or the Exxon Valdex, the flame only burns so hot regardless of volume. Any fuel fire does that. Bigger volume will burn bigger and longer creating more residual heat... but it still won't puddle aluminum like that.

edit: International flights? And here i thought LA was still considered to be a US territory.:rolleyes:

i did farted.

9/11 was an inside job
 

9/11 was an inside job

Our government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to establish what Goerge H. W. Bush once reffered to as a New World Order

Here is a collection of videos, video clips, and websites that prove that 9/11 was an inside job

The people running our government are openly setting up a prison grid in the U.S. They want a cashless society, National ID Cards for everyone, and Implantable Microchips, In their own documents they admit that they’re plan is to start world war three and have a global government rise from the ashes. The time to resist this is now. If we don’t we’re going to become total slaves


Free online Videos

Terrorstorm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=terrorstorm

Martial Law 911 Rise of the Police State
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=martial+law

911 The Road to Tyranny
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...985&q=911+road

Masters of Terror
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ters+of+Terror

Loose Change 2nd Edition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

Order of Death
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Order+of+Death

Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Bohemian+Grove

American Dictators
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ican+Dictators

Matrix of Evil
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Matrix+of+Evil

Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...eports+Exposed

Police State 3 Total Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...al+Enslavement

Police State 2 Total Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...A+The+Takeover

Police State 2000
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ice+State+2000

America Destroyed by Design
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...oyed+By+Design


Video clips

9/11

New York firemen discuss collapse of WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...TC+collapseWTC

WTC Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2...WTC%20collapse

Larry Silverstein admitting that he pulled building 7. Keep in mind it takes days to wire a building for demolition. But magically they were able to do it on 9/11 in just a few hours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7he_...%20Silverstein

George W. Bush: Don’t tolerate 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stpEOngofS0

Analysis of the Bin Ladin Confession Tape
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...din+confession

Lou Dobbs Calls for a new investigation into 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahv3VdknyZ4

Alex Jones predicts 9/11 on his July 25, 2001 TV Show
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...s+predicts+911

Alex Jones interviews actor Charlie Sheen who believes that the official 9/11 story is a fraud.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...72852690653060


New World Order

George H W Bush New World Order
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo


North American Union

CNN North American Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxCeWQ9Ge38


War on Terror

The Daily Show Deconstructs Fed’s Miami Terrorists Hype
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8a4z9N3eYc

False Flag Operations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzw-jHrck

False Flag Operations 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygmojLcPTkc


Iraq War

U.S. Government says that torture and warrentless searches are legal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-hWnXEy40s
Note: Whitehouse council John Hue has openly stated that it is ok to torture small children in front their parents, and in some cases sexually

Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern confronts Donald Rumsfeild over the Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyYlSSlSOXY

John Stewert: Donald Rumsfeld lies about WMDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrXaFluPY4A

Rumsfeld lies again about WMDs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Elr-TtqVB8

Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Husan back in the mid 1980s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

U.S. Troops drive tank over car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPx-X_ldiG8

New Iraq massacre tape emerges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM7pzc6__zI

U.S. troops target Iraqi civilians in revenge attack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42gjsGAjwyM

SBS Dateline documentary about the Abu Ghraib
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0bxSqWMdo

Abu Ghraib – The True Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6kZ5rEJd38


Police State

The Daily Show- Living In A Police State
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6otbnLMDVM

Gun Confiscation in New Orleans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwlUqO6tRlU

Urban Warfare Drill Military Preparing for Martial Law
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71Jux68F_AQ

Martial Law Is Coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9_5aBU33E


Big Brother

America: Freedom to Fascism preview
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...dom+to+Fascism

Bush/NSA spying on US Citizens: illegal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk5eWtAYno4

CNN NSA Spying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6B7BrA7ww4

Scarborough Slams Government For Bank Records
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3J1K2oU8OA

Alex Jones: The implantable microchip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uVw5XSWbjA

CEO of applied digital interviewed about the verichip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daCmVSLYI5k


miscillanious

Colbert Roasts President Bush – 2006 Whitehouse Correspondence Dinner
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...574879&q=CSPAN


Websites

9/11 Truth Websites

http://www.911truth.org
http://www.911blogger.com
http://www.st911.org
http://www.911citizenswatch.org
http://www.ny911truth.org
http://www.justicefor911.org
http://www.911inquiry.org
http://www.sf911truth.org
http://www.vt911.org
http://www.septembereleventh.org
http://www.911forthetruth.com
http://www.911truthla.us
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911research.com
http://www.911revisited.com
http://911review.com
http://www.911eyewitness.com
http://www.v911t.org
http://911readingroom.org
http://www.911busters.com
http://www.universalseed.org/main.asp
http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog
http://www.reopen911.org
http://9eleven.info
http://911source.org
http://www.911tv.org
http://www.truth911.net
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911information
http://www.truthmove.org/insight/911.html
http://physics911.net


Iraq War

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog
http://iraqblogcount.blogspot.com
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/albums.php
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com
http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com
http://iraqispirit.blogspot.com
http://blog.aliraqi.org


North American Union

http://www.spp.gov
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060331.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102
http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...a_TF_final.pdf


Alternative news sites

http://www.infowars.com
http://www.infowars.net
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.prisonplanet.tv
http://www.jonesreport.com
http://www.falseflagnews.com
http://www.tvnewslies.org
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.rense.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info
http://www.propagandamatrix.com
http://www.capitolhillblue.com
http://www.therawstory.com
http://www.guerrillanews.com

but really its not bush who's in control. he's just a puppet for the reptiod leaders underground. He's a human-reptile hybrid (i.e. shapeshifter) as is the british royal family and the rothchilds. So don't blame bush, he's controlled by the reptiles from the dracon starsystem. But you are right on about everything else.

Your last 3 posts in this thread have been nothing but sarcasm. Do you really think that does anything other than reinforce what I believe about 9/11 when most of the replys totally dodge the questions or ignore them all together?

I mean, most of us are sitting here talking about serious issues that really did happen, like my last post to you about drills on 9/11, and your next contribution to the thread is 'i did farted.'

Here's an idea.. look up a group of ACTUAL engineers. Lets say... Popular Mechanics/Science. They did multiple articles how they have gone through computer simulations how it was a plane crash that made it crash that way. Popular Mechanics/Science or other scientific communities all agree it was a plane.

So you listed youtube... great. Sounds reputable right next to kid 12204 getting kicked in the balls.

Remember, if its on the internet it must be true!

I've debunked the pop mech article twice. Third time's the charm?

You don't even think the planes that hit the WTC were the planes listed, based in part on grainy internet photos of things like third oddly placed engines. You, as far as I know, never answered how Bush, the illiminati, or the reptiloid overlords got all the people who would NEED to keep silent, silent over the issue of say a missing plane, verifiable passanger list etc. At one point you said you would get back to that concept of how some many people would be silent, but it seems we need to accept your version of the story, one where they are smart enough to pull this off yet dumb enough to not even use the proper aircraft, before you would get ot it.

Maybe I missed the post, if so please direct me.

You SAY you debunked, a reply is not a debunking, its a reply

Actually the photos were in magazines and on TV before they were on the internet. The nice thing about computers is they allow you to pause and more closely inspect videos and photos. Where would you like me to get my photos from?

This is why most people ignore you, Ustwo. Not just in Paranoia, but in Politics aswell.
How long did it take to understand the effects of agent orange? Shoot, we still don't even know what happened to President Kennedy, and he was surrrounded by people and cameras. Honestly, I don't see this as "smart" or "dumb". It simply is. The fact that over 10 million people (out of 300 million) in the US alone believe that 9/11 was an inside job speaks to the quality of the initial job, and to the damage control following.
This is what I'm talking about. Read my posts. There are only 4 or so main 9/11 conspiracy threads on the whole of TFP, 1 in Politics and 3 in Paranoia. Here is one of the responses. That post was in this very thread.

"I farted" wasn't enough characters. Either way, whether I did or didn't fart is not the issue here. Bringing it up only serves to detract from the discussion at hand, which is that reptoid overlords are controlling the leaders of the world so they can usher in the new world order of one government, a cashless currency and a bunch of other stuff.

In order to believe that George Bush and Tony Blair and Karl Rove and the rest were actually behind 9/11 so they can push the NWO, you have to believe the rest of the conspiracy. It makes no sense unless you subscribe to the entire conspiracy. What does GWB gain from orchestrating 9/11 if he's not a part of the reptoids? Nothing but 8 years of shit that didn't need to be that hard. But if he really was behind it, its because the reptiods were pulling his strings.

Isn't it funny that the secretary of homeland security's cousin Benjamin Chertoff directed the whole debunking article? Another fair and balanced critique just like the Bush appointed 9/11 commission. It's not even worth going through the straw-man attack of pop mechanics yet again.

double post, please delete

There are so many red flags and almost nothing has been explained in a way that doesn't involve unlikely coincidences.

If you are actually objective and not trying to fit missing pieces in to make the official story work i don't see how it can be believed. Reptilians is silly, the perps are sort of human.

It's not a stretch to think the others involved in the plot were put on the planes. As for keeping it secret many people are too patriotic to believe the truth and if it was told would pass it off as a lie.

There must be a lot of people who know at least one aspect is not true. The airline staff who checked correct passenger lists , the rescue workers in the buildings, building designers, anybody with common sense. :p

Show me the numbers and maybe I'd believe. Hell, large numbers in polls say they believe the earth is flat. Should this mean that satellites, the moon landing, space experiments, or any of the billions of world air/ship travel to be one big conspiracy?

Um.. yes it is. If you knew the government would fly a plane into the WTC... would you A) Run and tell every news team you could... or B) follow them onto the plane you have spent the last 6 months in preparation to fly into said towers.

Plus, I've yet to have one person explain how the demolitions could be placed right where the plane landed (amazing pilot abilities apparently)... and NOT be damaged and rendered useless by said explosion (or not pre-detonate).

I've yet to hear one person state how all those people, and apparently their plane, go missing with no one in 5 years somehow find out... or someone working on said base not come forward.

So only 1 out of 35 have common sense? I know it's rare but that's pushing it. Especially considering almost none of those people are actually structural engineers.

Yep, it takes a structural engineer to check passenger manifests. It's for the same reasons you need a policeman to help you cross the street. :lol:

So there weren't any Muslim names on the passenger lists... and yet the lists jive with the passengers. The numbers don't match either, on each plane.

No biggie, why worry. :rolleyes:



Here's more, the plane hits at a rolled-to-the-side angle, the building has thick concrete floor slabs ... this is essential to the "pancaking" theory... that would be like hitting a sewer grate, what was expelled out the other side of the building? Remember they found an intact engine a few blocks away, does it really fit between floors? Maybe WTC workers were really tall and needed lots of headroom?

Show me where the passenger manifests don't add up. And dont bother posting one of your conspiracy theory pages, show me actual evidence.

since I get to see them build skyscrapers out my window, I've watched them build about 5 of them....Interestingly enough, when they get the iron beams rolling in right, they go a floor a day!

Forces acting on buildings

an example of distance from floor to ceiling
http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/EYW/EYW192/e008711.jpg

Most buildings have FALSE ceilings, to accommodate HVAC, electrical, security cameras, CAT5e/6 wiring, cable, etc. There's LOTS of space, we're not talking CONVENTIONAL homes which have about 10ft ceilings, but commercial space where the actual space is almost 20 feet between floors. A bus can go through that particular picture...

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong articles, but aren't there studies which prove just the opposite? :|

I coulda' sworn that I read an article somewhere which proved that buildings don't pancake straight down when hit by an airplane at the angle it did.

Meh... I'm gonna' go see if I can find it.

http://www.pratt-whitney.com/prod_comm_pw2000.asp
The inlet on the PW2000 is narrow enough that I could not stand up completely in the space in front of the blades. The housing adds no more than 3 or 4 feet, making the fully intact engine 10 to 11 feet tall. By "intact," I assume they meant that the mechanical components were still in one piece, since the hosuing is not secured, so although it is improbable, it is entirely possible that an intact engine detached (probably with huge chunks of wing attached) and went out the other side.

Here's a great site, but not to you naysayers...
http://911u.org/CoDR/DR215.html

If you diss this next one you owe these people an apology... it is not a conspiracy site, they have no reason to lie. It's simply union engineers telling of their ordeal. The truth they tell speaks volumes. The WTC parking garage was destroyed... what the.... how did that happen, did a plane and a subway car crash at the same time?

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

Seaver, a bit naive aren't we? Where do you think you are going to find unaltered passenger manifests at this late date except those sites? Do you think anybody else has a reason to keep them?
A few years ago it was all online at the airlines or airport sites, they can't keep them up forever. It was well documented, though each time showed different names and totals. Go to your library and dig up a copy of USA today from a day or two after the crash.

Actually I'm not the naive one. The University of Texas just payed out millions upon millions of dollars simply to get to store the Nixon Watergate tapes. No one was injured, it did not lead to any turn in international policy, it did not spark a single war. Yet my university payed millions just to store it.

You dont think there would be many libraries that would drool at the chance to store just a carbon copy of these if they were true?

And they CAN keep them up forever, they don't because whatever manifests there were had been cleared up.

And yes.. 911 U does have a reason to lie. If there's no conspiracy, there's no reason for the existence. Therefore the "U." dies if the terrorists really were responsible.

So... please try again.

You gotta just love the insanity, hypocrasy and irony of all this.

The conspiracy people claim 9/11 was created by BushCo/Isreal whomever for money purposes.

Yet, the "educated" experts yelling conspiracy are making millions upon millions going on talkshows, selling books, publishing articles, having websites that get their names out there so that someone at CNN or the Guardian may quote them.

I just find it sad, that instead of trying to learn from it and build a stronger nation that won't allow it to happen again, we use it to divide us even more.

Actually, those shouting conspiracy are not only not profiting from it, but most are losing their jobs and their credibility. 9/11 truth isn't a profitatible. 9/11 truth book sales are not high. 9/11 truth is almost never covered on TV or radio, and when it is it is usually public access type of stuff (a.k.a. not corporiate funded).

Edit: the real stuff that's selling has more to do with the after math of 9/11, like Afghanistan and Iraq, or the loss of civil liberties and phone taps.

Oh wow....

Please, these conspiracy books aren't even a blip on the radar when it comes to sales. The vast majority of them aren't even in bookstores. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I feel a lot worse about people like Ann Coulter getting wall to wall promotion of their books, or the Bush paid propagandists who appear to be independent. Aren't those people a much bigger threat?

Sorry 9/11 isn't a done deal for many people. Everything that's happened geo-politically since 9/11 has changed for the worst. I refuse to simply move on when we still haven't fixed the original problem.

Seaver is still confusing me. So where are the manifests? They exist, you find them. If the hijackers names are on there they've been added after Sept 11th 2001.

So you think we need to brush this all aside and move on? We have pictures of Saddam in his underwear... 9-11 solved. :lol:

Since when does the jury have to prove guilt to the defense?

You're the one with off the wall theories that in no way resemble coheasiveness or simple logic.. and you want me to do the searching to prove you wrong?

Well you aren't justified in calling anything illogical until you prove it illogical. Th weight of evidence is on our side, but when you make a conclusion, it should be supported.

Weight of evidence? All I've seen is random theories thrown around because of a general distrust in our government and a seathing hatred of Bush.

Don't forget the reptoids. I'm serious. If there is a conspiracy they are most definitely involved.

http://www.movieprop.com/V/voriginal.jpg

They come for us all!

Okay, how's this?

I've personally spoken to a number of structural engineers since 9/11 about several aspects of the collapse. One of them is the static load bearing ability of buildings. A good friend of mine, a commercial structural engineer, stated plainly and without exaggeration that the industry standard ratio for static loads in building high rises is at least five. This means that if a floor is rated to carry one ton, then it should be able to easily withstand 5 tons without collapsing. Now according to the NIST, the steel in the WTC lost 60% of it's rated strength, which is probably an inflated number, but I'll use it anyway. If the fire, which was said to be around 550 degrees C (1022 F), reduced the rated strength by 60%, that would mean that the actual load bearing ability would have only been reduced by less than 20%. Any engineering student can tell you that 20% loss of strength isn't enough to cause a collapse or even cause warping. If the building was only supporting 20% of it's ability (it is law that a building cannot be loaded over it's rated strength, in actuality, the building was only carrying an estimate 8-10% of it's full strength, or 37-50% of it's rated strength), and the strength of the building was reduced 20%, then you still have a building that's standing strong. It wouldn't have fallen from the heat of the fires. It wouldn't have even moved.

That's not random theory. That's hard engineering experience, industry standards, and simple math put up against the NIST report - the final official explaination for the collapse. Fires could not have collapsed the towers even if they were allowed to burn for days. Both towers collapsed in about an hour. I am suggesting, based on evidence, that something else might have been responsible for the collapse of the building.

people must think i'm joking. what a shame. when the reptoids come for you, don't be suprised.

Ok, here is your illogical conclusions.

1) The government purposefully killed 3000 of it's own citizens, causing millions of dollars to clean up said mess. For what? A chance to invade Afghanistan? In an effort to allow Bush to get re-elected?

2) All of the thousands of people who must have been involved supported the plan to kill 3000 innocent citizens in support of a Government who did not appoint them to their current position, and somehow convinced all involved to directly go against their oath protecting and serving the constitution.

3) The planes were not the planes which went missing. The government clearly has them in a hanger in Area 51 for 5 years, with all the passengers. All of the (again) thousands of people involved in transporting said plane, and caring for the passengers for 5 years have no qualms about supporting said kidnapping and murder. Not one comes forward to the news agencies.

4) Every air traffic controller now must be convinced to lie and say the government line of what happened that day. Knowing evidently full well what happened and supporting said murders.

5) The explosives must be placed at the exact floors at which the planes hit. The explosive experts must infiltrate the building, hammer through the walls to place said explosives onto the support beams. Explosives must be placed just perfectly, and magically capable of withstanding a plane crash and inferno without prematurely exploding, and still be able to detonate. Not one of the explosive team or admin come forward.

6) The pilots must have the skill to hit exactly in the right floors in the right position at 500mph. The skill to pull that off must be practiced for years.. skill in flying directly into a building looking like the WTC. Not one pilot or admin officer comes forward. The plane must hit exactly perfect in order to not prematurely set off said explosives. Not one pilot, Navigational Officer, or admin comes forward.

OR

1) Group of terrorists who only exists to kill American civilians spent 10 years and came up with a plan that would work. Using our own anti-terrorism methods of not fighting the hijackers they pulled off a plan.

2) Ability to fly anywhere into WTC in order to set off fire.

3) Said terrorist organization claims responsibility, with financial links proving.

What sounds more likely to you?

sOMEONE IN THIS THREAD EARLIER HAD MENTIONED THIS "At the time of the attacks, I believe a Mr. Silverstein was the leaseholder on the Word Trade Center. He did an interview shortly afterward with a Public Service station - that aired only once. Basically, when he was talking about Building 7, he said that a firefighter had called him up and said that the damage was too extensive. Mr Silverstein, having no other choice, said to go ahead and "pull" it.

For those of you that don't know, "Pull" is a common term used to descibed detonating the charges in controlled building collapses."

For furthur information, in firefighting terms, the phrase "pull it" is also used to mean pull the team out and let the structure burn. just my $.02.

Seaver, how do you expect to be taken seriously? You plainly state there is no evidence. I post evidence. You ignore it. Instead of reading my post (I have no evidence here that you've read my post) and responding to it, you simply respond to what you want, whether I've stated it or not.

It's posts like yours that prevent reasonable discussion in Paranoia and Politics.

I just realized when this thread started...lol. As far as burning is concerned. I quote a comment here...
"Again, jet fuel, burning in open air, will reach roughly 1,100 degrees at it's absolute hottest - insufficient to actually MELT steel. Certainly it can weaken the steel, but not melt it down. The WTC jet fuel did not burn in open air, thus a lower temperature may reasonably be assumed."

The last sentence is my concern. In a CONTAINED area, not open air, jet fuel burns HOTTER than its open air burning temperature. Just to make sure, I called a friend of mine who is a firefighter.

That's a very good point. While there was a hole in the side of the building, it was hardly in open air. Combine that with the fact that both buildings collapsed at free fall speed, and you have to start wondering what really happened.

The initial impact did not weaken the centrer columns, it only fractured a few of the outer colums, the explosion burned off most of the fuel upon impact, what was left burned in a relatively closed area, and produced very little smoke, all of which was grey, not black, they burned for a very short time, firefighters were quoted saying there were explosions inside the building right before the collapse, they both collapsed at nearly free fall speeds, and the material was shipped off before FEMA could inspect it.

What sounds more likely to you?

1) Small fires and very little loss of structural intgrity caused two of the strongest buildings even built to fall in about an hour, and at near free fall speeds.

2) Something else.

Why? Because I dont listen to 911u.org? If you've been in college the main thing they teach you is how to question sources... these sources don't stand up to a 3 year old's investigation.

Show me a major news network, some sort of major engineer society, something that says logic. I can claim I'm a structural engineer on a webpage... doesn't mean that what I say has any basis in physics.

And dont blame me for the state of politics. Sorry I dont tout the line of all but a few people and state reasons for conservative opinions.

Seaver, does college still involve a whole lot of dope smoking?

I could take your post point by point... but that'd be pointless. :)

As compared to posts like yours Will which make politics indistinguishable from paranoia. You belong here.

You didn't read post #364, which I posted as a direct response to your post. Why bother posting in a thread if you don't read what other people write?
Do you have anything to say about 9/11, Ustwo?

Funny... smoking pot makes you paranoid... and one of the people debunking the paranoia theories is accused of smoking pot?

First, thank you for the compliment, we all should realize htat everyone on here is an adult, and has the right to their own opinions, but then what kind of society would we be ifwe weren't allowed to express it huh?...lol.

In comment to the 'explosions' heard. I am not, nor will I ever claim to be an explosives expert. I have in prior military experience dealt with explosives, but I can't claim to be an expert, but here is something that makes me wonder about using the term 'explosions':
What makes an explosion?
Per Meriam Webster online: ex·plo·sion
Pronunciation: ik-'splO-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin explosion-, explosio act of driving off by clapping, from explodere
1 : the act or an instance of exploding <injured in a laboratory explosion>
2 : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth <the explosion of suburbia> <an explosion of red hair>
3 : the release of occluded breath that occurs in one kind of articulation of stop consonants

So by definition do you agree that an explosion, even in SOUND could be the rapid expansion of any gases or material? If so, then an explosive sound COULD be made from any rapid expansion? perhaps water traped in a pipe, heated to over 1000 deg could 'explode' giving off tremendous force, imagine the force involved if water were to be 1000 deg and then suddenly the pipe containing it would give way? LOTS of force as the released water suddenly expands into a gas(remember water boils at I BELIEVE 212 deg? or something close to that. So sudden expansion of water, even if it were being forced out of a broken pipe, if it were superheated then it would boil instantly.
I'm not trying to use this as an explanation of why they fell, or why they fell so evenly, but you have to admit that it CAN explain the possibility of explosive noises? Just some extra information. Forgive me if I repeat anything, I am STILL trying to catch up, I mean you all have 10 PAGES to read up on...lol

Sorry all but the pattern here is pretty clear.

Do you really think willravel is some guy who comes up with dozens upon dozens of links, blaming Bush for everything ?

I find it far more likely that willravel is involved in a prolonged propaganda campaign then some guy in his basement obsessed with evil Bush, spending hours of his life making posts for TFP. Perhaps MY post belongs on politics, but no more than this one does.

I decided to delve into the paranoia board to test the waters again, but saddly its a far cry from its height a few years ago. Evil shadow governments in every corner, mass murder for undefined political gain, a Bush behind every tree.

I think its funny just how many of you think the latest terror plot was a plan to boost a political viewpoints chances in some upcomming election without the slightest proof because of the fact that you don't like that political view point.

I don't mean to dissapoint all the reptoids believers but PBS' Frontline did an Emmy Award winning documentary called 'Why The Towers Fell'. Imagine that, they actually talked to the engineer who designed the building and not their 'friend the structural engineer'. The impact and collapse were fully explained. It was a fascinating documentary and they will be doing a follow-up story on September 5.





Building on Ground Zero
http://www.pbs.org/nova/wtc/

Web site launch date: August 24, 2006
Original PBS Broadcast Date: September 5, 2006

In a follow-up to the Emmy Award-winning documentary "Why The Towers Fell," NOVA looks back at the events of 9/11 and reviews the major investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center. What did the Twin Towers' catastrophic fall teach us about how to improve the construction and security of our most important structures, both present and future? What challenges face architects, engineers, and builders? What obstacles prevent them from adopting new building codes? The film features incisive interviews with key investigators and engineers, including Leslie Robertson, who engineered the World Trade Center towers and takes viewers to the construction site of his current project in Shanghai, touted as the world's tallest structure.

Here's what you'll find on the companion Web site:

*

From Impact to Collapse
Narrated by Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the federal building and fire safety investigation into the disaster, this audio slide show details the series of structural, fire-related, and other events that occurred within the towers as they progressed toward sudden, catastrophic collapse.
*

Above the Impact: A Survivor's Story
Brian Clark was one of only a handful of individuals to escape either tower from above the floors where the planes struck. Here, Clark tells his riveting, vividly personal tale.
*

Towers of Innovation
They're gone now, but New York's Twin Towers featured many elements that were groundbreaking at the time: a basement like a bathtub, a building like a tube, and an elevator system like a subway system, among others. In this article, review the buildings' engineering marvels.
*

Outfitting Firefighters
The firefighters that raced up the stairwells of the doomed towers carried several dozen pounds of equipment, everything from axes and turnout gear to thermal imaging cameras and self-contained breathing apparatuses. In this feature, prepare firefighters for a high-rise response.
*

The Structure of Metal
Explore metal at the atomic level and discover how it's structured, why it bends, and what happens when it heats up.

Also Links & Books and a Teacher's Guide

Don't miss upcoming NOVA broadcasts and companion Web sites—subscribe to our e-mail bulletin.

Great stuff on that link. Though it appears some of it doesn't help the official story too much.

This is a great story of escape. It details the damage to the building very near the plane impact. The hooey about heat melting the steel sure seems like BS when the survivors are right there walking out. Also he mentions an explosion as his coworker is leaving just as the tower falls. Explain that.

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

Ugh.... I hate to get back into this, and yet the damn thing keeps drawing me in....

Melting steal - I am not sure what you are getting at here. You have seen the images, haven't you? There quite clearly was something melting in those buildings, and it was pouring out the side. The fact that someone was able to use the evacuation stairwells to get past that floor prooves nothing at all.

Did you consider the possibility that the stairs were in a different part of the building? Did you consider that stairwells are designed to insulate people from the fire on the floor?

Is part of your theory that the whole fire was staged? Even willravel will concede - I think - that it was extremely hot on those floors. I thought the argument was that it just wasn't hot enough?

(Of course, as has been pointed out many times before, nobody is saying that the supporting steel actually melted - I don't know what the stuff pouring out the side was, but it wasn't that. Rather, it was heated until it lost so much strength that it was no longer able to support the loads it was carrying.

Again, though, I don't think anyone is saying there was uniform heating throughout the floors where the collapse began. I suppose it is possible for enough of the support to be weakened in one part of the floor to cause the whole thing to collapse. If that is true, then it is entirely possible that this person to be able to get down through the less-hot areas, isn't it?)

Doesn't the fact that so few people were able to escape from floors above the impact strongly suggest that most were unable to get past the floors that were hit?


Explosion on the ground floor - Again, not sure what you are getting at. It's not clear from the man's story how closely the explosion he saw preceded the collapse of the building. Logic suggests there was some time lag, or he would have been crushed by the building when it fell. Are you suggesting that it was some sort of failed or premature demolition explosion?

Even those who argue for the demolition charges theory (which I think is preposterous for many of the reasons cited by others) don't, to my knowledge, suggest the charges were placed at the bottom of the building.

So, fastom, I can't explain the explosion, but I am not sure what you think it proves.

Balderdash, I'd like it if you read Post 364 from this thread. It seems that it was missed by some people, and I *think* it has some relevant content.

Yes, I read that. It has nothing to do with my post, however.

Yes, it has nothing to do with your previous post. I was asking if you had any thoughts about the post.

Not particularly, no. I have no idea who your friend is, whether your facts are accurate or whether you have applied your analysis correctly.

I choose to believe the various independent organizations that have explained - to my satisfaction - what happened and why (as an engineering matter, not a geopolitical one). I have seen their credentials and I know what they purport to mean. You may think the entire engineering community is a farce and they don't know what they are doing, but I think you are wrong.

A few interesting things about your post that I choose not to read to much into, as I imagine it was just quick and loose writing on your part:

you say you spoke with "a number" of structural engineers, then talk only about what one of them told you. Should we infer that the others told you something else?

you do not say that the one who told you about load ratios agrees with your theory that the fire did not cause the collapse. Should we infer that he/she does not?

you also do not say whether your friend agrees with your application of the load ratio information to the WTC collapse. did you extrapolate that on your own, or did you work it through with your friend?

Also, a parting thought....

you don't mention in your analysis any of the additional factors contributing to the collapse of the floors, such as any damage incurred when the airplanes hit, any additional weight on the floors due to airplane debris and debris from floors above that were damaged. even assuming your analysis to be correct, the weight on an individual piece of flooring could have been double its usual load, particularly if a section above has fallen on it.

I haven't done the math, but if a floor support is already damaged, or already supporting additional weight, I should think it would be more susceptible to collapse due to fire, no?

I can't give his name (nor can I give my own). If you'd like, there are plenty of engineers out there, and most of them are only a phone call away.
Here's the thing though...the various independant organizations you mention are in two groups: the NIST and FEMA, and entertainment organizations like the History Channel and Popular Mechanics. The second group is basically a joke from the standpoint of fact checking, as they get all their info from the first group and simply reprint. That means that the 'various organizations' boil down to just two organizations very quickly. Two organization do not represent the entire engineering community.
Most of them told me to fuck off before I could ask them a single question. I don't really count them as against or for my point as they did not give me any information beyond the fact that some peopkle are dousche bags.
He gave me the same answer that most people give me: "I honestly don't know." No one came out and siad I was wrong. A few people said I was probably right, but essentially I was given the 'let me think about it' answer.
He agreed completly. As soon as he told me about the 5 times the rated weight thing I asked him if that meant that it was closer to 20%, and he said yes.
Damage incurred from the airplanes would not have caused the top floor to collapse first, as is varified by photographic evidence taken the day of the collapse. The NIST and FEMA both say that heat, not crash damage, was the cause of the collapse. As for the airplanes themselves, airplanes are quite light, and even lighter when they are ripped to shreds by outer support columns. The weight of the plane would be divided up many many times.

Try this link for an in-depth, expert, analysis. :lol:

Tilted Nonsense might have been a better plac for that link. I can appreciate your point, but I do find it slightly offensive as I have invested a great deal of time and effort in this.

Well then, I'll answer you somewhat seriously. In a nutshell, I agree with Seaver when he posted:

A huge government conspiracy involving several hundred (if not thousand) people and planted explosives is not the most likely scenario to me. Like you, it was a likely scenario to the DU poster that I linked. Difinative photographic evidence of a controlled scientific study to support your claims. What more could you ask for? :lol:

You're skipping ahead to the end. The biginning of the discussion has to start with the facts. Speaking from a simple standpoint of a layman, some of the events surrounding 9/11 don't add up. Once past that, you look at it with the assistence of specialists and trained professionals who can answer your questions. Once you're sure things don't add up and have proof, then you move on to how it was carried out. Once you have that, you move on to whome.

You're skipping to the end.

May i suggest a reread of that article.

really? so one cannot *THINK* for themselves in a manner that works for the individual?

So me, Seaver, and everyone else who engages in this thread has to follow your methodolgy?

I find that quite ironic that a person who is starting off as the simplistic method of Occam's razor is being told they are wrong.

Think of it this way....what's the point of discussing something like this if no one wants to simply look at the evidence? You can think for yourself all you want, but screaming half truths about conclusions isn't going to solve this. Careful breaking down of evidence is the only way that anything is really gong to get solved. It worked really well in the 9/11 thread in politics (with the people who payed attention to it).

You don't have to follow my methodology, and the thread doesn't have to have meaning, but it would be nice if it did. Instead of being a flame magnet, maybe it could have relevence. Instead of being a back and fourth between "You're all f**king crazy" posts and "Why aren't you reading my posts?" posts, we can actually discuss the subject at hand.

Look at post 364, 365 and 366. I posted very specific information that is not paranoia, in my humble opinion, in response to a challenge by Seaver. Insdtead of responding to that, the second post is fmale worthy of banning (in every part of TFP except paranoia. Apparently the rules are different here). The third post, by Seaver, the same person who issued the challenge, ignored my post completly and assumed that he knew everything about the thread. It makes broad stroke accusations hidden awkwardly behind a pseudo-occam's razor argument. He strawman's (example: planes at area 51), generalizes ("Every air traffic controller now must be convinced to lie and say the government line of what happened that day" is pure BS), and even falsifies (there is NO evidence financially linking the al Qaeda or OBL to 9/11, absolutely none. Numerous posts in this very thread prove that, but one wouldn't know that unless one read the thread before posting...) in order to try and support his post.

Those three posts really are this thread in a nutshell. And when I try to lay down some ground rules to fix the problem, I get shot down by a Supermod. The secret to TFPs success is user-maturity. We have rules that remind people that they are adults, and should treat others with respect. When that respect breaks down, so also goes TFP.


Edit: I know that looking at the bigger picture, the 9/11 conspiracy theories look crazy. But the bigger picture is hardly the only perspective. If you really want to prove me wrong, then address my facts, not the conclusions that come after the facts. I've said it many times: my conclusions are my own, and I do not take them to be fact. They are guesses based on evidence, and nothing more. Until you can do that, until you can discuss this at a basic level, it's just meaningless flaming. BTW, Occam's razor is a princeple, not a law. Not all correct explainations are simple or likely.

My point isn't to destroy this thread, but actually invite more people to it that have differing opinion and method of arriving there.

If I follow exactly your path, then all that has happened is that I'm able to see and understand where your argument or point of view is coming from. It does not necessarily bring me to a differing opinion from my original.

I'm not shooting anything down. I'm asking how one can "request" that in the spirit you are stating of "respect."

Ben G. Streetman is the dean of the University of Texas school of engineering (ranked 5th in the Nation). He gave a lecture on how it was indeed possible. Sorry if I trust his credentials more than your unknown friend.

Actually no, it's very relevant. Your whole case is that it wasn't the planes that caused the collapse, so obviously it was someone. You have to give conclusive evidence on who that someone was for your case to actually make sense. Since I'm not the one who started pointing fingers at the government doing it, the box was opened by someone else. Therefore I am more than right in attacking said conclusions.

Do you have a link or something?
Then you clearly misunderstand my case. I don't have to give evidence of who or what is responsible in order to make my point, just who or what isn't. I am trying to prove that the fire and planes were not responsible for the collapses. If I can prove that to everyone, then I'll move on to the next step. I see little value in exploring the second step in this without exploring the first to it's end.

I have very little confidence in my conclusions about who is responsible because there is so little evidence to support them. I do feel confident in my conclusions about the evidence surrounding the collapses of the WTC Towers and the Pentagon.

I can say with supreme confidence that I have no idea who is responsible for 9/11. All I can say is that I know who didn't do it. Everything else is conjecture.

willravel, IMO, you should just keep going the way you are going. All you seem to be doing is asking the questions that need to be asked, and demonstrating the inconistancies in the official "line".

To you and I, it seems strange, and potentially "telling"....that NIST has spent at least $16 million and after 4 years, has no more of a vague determination than FEMA as to what happened to WTC 7, and the 9/11 Commission simply ignored that question completely.

Here is NIST's latest "timetable" for answers....now missed....by months....with no re-promise of when the report that they avoided including in last year's "Final" report, will be issued. The problem here is that the postings from uninformed skeptics who try to discourage the posting of questions and of inconsistnacies in the official "line", interferes and distracts from that very process. It is telling that you are the one who is now given "direction", and not the "baiting" "trolls" who contribute nothing other than attempts to discredit you by "pressing your buttons" via personal attacks both here, and about your posting here.....that they continue to bring up on other threads to discredit you, instead of challenging your opinions.

You are not the problem, my friend. You've been driven here....and now discouraged from even examining this controversy here, as well:
...but in Jan. 2006, NISt was still looking for answers.....
The "work" that is being done here is to compile a record of what does not "add up" in the governments account of what happened on 9/11.

In this post, we demonstrate that not only does the government's account of what happened to WTC-7, the only steel framed tall building in the world, ever to collapse as a result of a structural fire ( it was 47 stories tall and it collapsed less than 8 hours after fire burned on some of it's floors), but that the most respected and technically savvy government agency charged with a scientific investigation and determination of what happened that caused three skyscrapers to all collapse at or near the speed of gravity, into their own footprints, because that agency's mission is to make buiding code change determinations that enhance fire safety and structural integrity, not only did not include the causes of most troubling building collapse of the three, WTC7, in it's "final" report, issued a year ago....but has missed a promised seperate addendum to the final report that was due 2 months ago, and now offers no firm date for that release.

Since WTC7 was not struck by a jumbo airline flying at high speed, the delay in reporting determination of the reasons for it's collapse, puts all other high rise steel framed structures in a state of fire safety uncertainty, along with all
similar buildings planned, or under construction, and those who underwrite insurance of these structures, at a higher exposure to safety and financial risk.

This is the present state of affairs. Nothing else must be "so", for this to be the status of the investigation of what happened. I suggest that those who want to post conditions for what willravel and some others are doing here, to start their own thread and post their opinions there. This subject has already been "driven to paranoia", accompanied with derision towards those who are willing to come here and attempt to have a serious discussion. Since there is no discouraging of "troll and bait posts", is the intent to drive this discussion off of all TFP threads?

You guys obviously cannot tell when a moderator is contributing to the thread or moderating the thread. I figure you'd know by now having seen that we have pretty much standardized on COLORING AND BOLDING OUR POST to make sure people know when we have the moderator hat on.

Again, if you are asking someone to change their point of view, reasonsing, opinion. would you want them to just change it instantly? Or would you expect them to approach it with critical thinking and arrive there as you did, by asking the questions and finding the answers for themselves?

My dad is a pastor. My dad also has road rage. One time he was driving and someone cut him off. He flipped the guy off. They guy was a perishner at the church.

My dad didn't have his clarics on. He wasn't performing communion. He thought he was just some guy driving downtown. But then again he wasn't. He is always a pastor. Whether he is blessing someone or shopping for produce at Safeway, he is always a pastor....and that role follows him wherever he goes and whatever he does.

I know you weren't warning anyone about anything as a moderator, but you still are a moderator.
I would hope someone would be able to use critical thinking instead of generalizing, straw manning, and falsifying. Of course the post I was responding to offered no in depth analysis. No critical thinking.

But see, I have spoken to engineers as well, from mechinical to structural, industrial to manufacturing. The all see that it's quite possible to have happened as it did without intervention of a conspiracy group.

There is one part that is missing from your load capacity theory and that is motion. Once the material is in motion it no longer can withstand the load as such because the load isn't incremental it is instant. So while you may be able to hold the load a 100lb bag of cement in your arms, it falling at differenet speed than just being "transferred" you cannot hold that same load.

We interveined with the collapse?
I have no doubt that the plane did damage going in. I have no doubt the initial explosion did damage. I do have doubt that a collapsed building that's top floor collapsed first was made to collapse by damage in the middle. I do have doubts that the heat from fire that would be most intense and thus most hot in the middle of the building would cause the top floor to collapse first. I do doubt that any amount of fire damage, impact damage, and a combination of the two, could cause a building as strong as the WTC towers to collapse at near free fall speeds.