According to Popular Mechanics, it's 1500F. Remember? I linked it above. 1800F was the maximum theoretical temperature including evrything else in the building given by NIST (without any evidence or equasions, btw).

Time for work, I'll respond to the rest later. Good luck on the midterm.

willravel,

I have been wathching this thread from the sidelines. I don't usually post in Paranoia but I wanted challenge what you said becuase when I read Fatsom's anology I did not buy it either.

Fatsom's anology has two parts to it,

1) how he uses the analogy to say that while they may be physically possible the arguments put forward by those supporting the generally accepted (and I say generally accepted because it is probably true that most people just accept it) reasoning for what brought down the towers are just so unlikely. His analogy takes it a little to far in stating that these same people would use science to justify the person not hitting the ground. I will give him that however, becuase that was one of his the point (I assume, I have not talked to him) of using an anlogy.

2) how he presents his side as if he has all the answers, that the answers are obvious, and that they are so clear that they are impossible to miss. Saying that he would notice the rubber cord around the guys ankles is saying that his theories on the destruction of the towers are so obvious that anyone who can't see them must be blind.

I think that in his analogy someone who did not consider the cord around the ankles is blind. I don't think that is the case for the towers.

I think fatsom's first point is kind of teh argument that you have been making on this thread recently. You are saying that while it may be possible if everything lined up perfectly, you just don't buy it. That you feel that there has to be some other factors and that you are not sure of what those factors may be.

The second part of Fatsom's analogy says that his theory is a fact that is plain to see.

Actually they ran experiments, both virtual, and real world, to determine the temperature of the fires, I posted a link a few post ago.


you just got done saying it was likely that the temps were 800F, which is highly un likely, just like it is unlikely for a fire fueled only by jet fuel (jet fuel in controlled lab conditions) to burn at 800, or 1800, 800 is the minimum temperature for it to burn and has to be under the worst circumstances, 1800 is under optimal circumstances, the fires had decent circumstances, and the other fuels inside the building would allow the fires to get to 1500F.

as for making the building collapse with only 800F to deal with, yes i could, but it would be beyond the scope of what reasonable is, as i previously showed http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=437 it is possible to expands the support girders by the 2 inches required to drop the support by heating the metal by 231.5C, which is in fact 450 F. but a higher temperature just makes more since.

Dilbert
I'm calling your teacher, you aren't studying... and you really need to!

I'm not saying my theory is right, i'm saying the others are wrong. But thanks for taking the time to figure out what i'd said.
To recap, what is theoretically possible and what is likely are two different things. When "the real story" requires a whole bunch of improbable but theoretically possible circumstances it's just unlikely.

If you think a jet fuel fire does those sorts of things you are welcome to your opinion, i am very well versed in heating , bending and cutting steel, i did that for several hours today alone. I'd still be there trying at Christmas if i was using jet fuel... or drapes, or desks or carpet. Face it, you are afraid of fire, it's magic to you and does magical things. Fire is a useful tool to me.

By the way, where's this "Fatsom" coming from...i don't weigh THAT much! :|

I must say i enjoy the discussion, even if some of you are totally unreasonable. :thumbsup:

oops sorry about the fatsom. When youmade the comment about it I did not get what you were saying. it took careful study of your name to see that I was mixing up the s and t.

Sorry again.

For someone who supposably works with fire and bending steel all day you sure do have some weird opinions on it.

If you worked with fire you'd know that, when heated, metal becomes weaker and expands at the same time. You should also know there is a difference between heat and temperature. We have forged swords out of heat (WELL below 800 degrees) for millenia with simply heat and pressure. We know full well the WTC had plenty of both. Why is it so hard to believe that the smallest of cracks could grow and buckle?

Oh do I have to point out the "whole bunch of improbable" circumstances the cleanest conspiracy theories have again?

After pointing out my professor’s error, I aced the test.
It’s not just theoretically possible, it’s highly likely. Explosives are unlikely, there is to much extra work to get them placed, detonated, and cleaned up. It was shown in the report that under similar conditions, a fire in an office setting, will reach temperatures of 1000 C

They know the temperatures reached 1000C because they ran test to simulate the conditions, both physically and through computer simulations, both came up with a high bound of 1000C. Instead of saying ‘I don’t know so they musty be lying about it’ try doing some real research finding how they knew it

Ignoring the personal attacks…

I am hardly afraid of fire, I make more crème Brule in a year then you make in 10 lifetimes, and you know how I top them, with a propane blow torch. Propane burns at nearly 3000 F, how can I take a 3000F flame to a delicate sugary treat with out burning it? by turning the flame down and slowly moving the flame around the dish so no spot gets direct heat for to long, you see, the flame is 3000F but the flame does not instantly heat the sugar to 3000F, there’s a huge mathematical equation to calculate how much heat is actually transferred to it. The flame is on low, so it is not producing much heat, but its still 3000F. It slowly raises the temp of the sugar until it melts. If I was to have the flame on to high, the heat transfer would be too great and the sugar would burn before I could remove the flame. Why does this matter? I am trying to illustrate in terms you can understand what the difference between heat and temperature is. Although with quotes like this:
I’m not sure why I even bother, you just don’t get it.

To you, fire is a tool, I’m sure you use it, but you don’t understand it, your views on fire come from personal observations, not from scientific research, I’m sure if we were both given a blow torch and told to cut some steel, you’d be done before I even got mine lit, however, if we were asked us to both to explain it in scientific detail, how fire cuts steel, you’d be left floundering after saying ‘very well’.


It’s a conspiracy to discredit you; we all know fat people lie to get more free samples at the piggly wiggly.

Dilbert Dilbert Dilbert Dilbert Dilbert

Quit repeating yourself, we're at 16 pages already.

Take your 3000 degree propane torch (LOL) and try to make a 60 foot steel girder into a 60 foot 6 inch girder... i'll wait! :lol:

this is the second time you've made gross exaggerations to the fact that metal expands, the first being the car engine.

Metal doesn't need to expand that much nor does any material need to in order to make it deviate from the tolerences it was designed for. Most of the times when it falls out of tolerance, it fails.

Steel bridges grow and shrink by inches but were designed to adjust to the loads and they do grow by inches in some cases, that's why there are gaps in them at specific locations. Again, it's about engineering the loads and tolerances in such a way that the object will do what it was designed to do.

Applying direct heat to ONE location does not create the same conditions that allow for bridge steel to grow and contract.

I have to agree with Dilbert that you may appear to know the practical methods for using the materials but not how the materials truly react to loads and conditions.

I am very well aware metal expands... acutely aware. However... SIX INCHES ?
Can not, will not, no way, no how. Put that sixty foot beam in a furnace, heat the thing up cherry red and it isn't going to grow six inches.

Science fails you... i'm sorry.

http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs/223/expansion/

Steel can expand 24% it's noral length with heat.

You got it backwards, you fail science.

Not quite seaver... its 1.24 x10-5


The equation for linear expansion is ∆L= α L0 ∆T

Change in length equals the thermal coefficient for the material, times the initial length, times the change in temperature in degrees C (or K).

The thermal coefficient of steel is 1.24x10-5, so for every degree C change, the steel expands by 1.24x10-5 %. So to expand the 60 foot steel girder, that’s

0.5 = 1.24x10-5 * 60 * ∆T
∆T = 672.04 C

Well within the 1000C range I have to work with.

I'm not a structural engineer by any means, but the twin towers were constructed sturdy enough to where they should have been able to withstand being hit by a plane. The way the buildings collapsed (A perfect 90 degree angle) is/was indicative of a controlled demolition.

No computer alive would be able to simulate the twin towers falling the way they did due to being hit by a plane. It's not possible as it defies the laws of physics.

24%!!!! :lol:

Maybe you stopped reading my post, I corrected seaver, its 1.24xz10-5 per degree C, he misread the page, and like you did not grasp the thermal expansion of objects, it’s a common mistake; the result from the thermal expansion equation is delta L, not L. To get an expansion for steel of 24% is impossible; it would need to remain solid at a temperature of approximately, 20,000 C, that’s not possible at all. 6 inches on a 60 foot beam is easy, 0.833% can be done with a few hundred C, just because you don't understand it, does not mean it does not happen.

Glad we cleared that up, plenty of credible structural engineers have said it can collapse in the manner seen, and they have science to back it up, not baseless opinion.

What is the point of quoting part of a sentence and responding to it? Simply because I'm not a structural engineer doesn't mean that I haven't read articles and documentaries regarding the collapse of the twin towers.

1.) Buildings don't fall straight down at a perfect 90 degree angle unless there is a controlling factor behind it. We've all played Jenga, right? Well, I challenge someone to throw a rock at the top of a Jenga tower and see how it falls. I assure you that it won't be perpendicular to the ground.

2.) I've always wondered how the fires in the WTC were hot enough to melt reinforced steel beams, but not hot enough to melt the highjackers passports...

Actually, watch some demolition videos and you'll see that it's not always true that a building falls at a 90 perfect angle even in a controlled demolition. Throwing the rock at the upper of the jenga tower and you get the spray of debris just from what was HIT to outside of the structure. What you cannot account for in the jenga tower is that the piece of jenga are solid so you will not experience the same weakness of the support structure below the damaged area.

Also, please watch more 9/11 videos and you'll see that the structure did not fall in a straight line, it fell as it met resistence, some parts "blossomed' or "flowered" outwards and fell as far as BLOCKS away (please note that NYC blocks in Lower Manhattan are quite smaller than your average suburban sprawl blocks.)

there is a HUGE difrence, the inertia of the building vs the inertia of the jenja tower. the amount of force required to move the tower is an insane amout, where as the amount to move the jenga tower is marginal. the impact of the planes was just enough to rock the building a few inches, there is no way it could fall over, it has to fall stright down.

... And wait, it did tip a bit too, but not much why? Because the collapse started on one side first

http://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg

They were not hot enough to melt steel, no one credible is making that claim, the steel got hot enough to expand and weaken, not melt. So they found a passport, so what, weird shit happens.


After some further reading on the matter, I have some new things to bring to the table, I previously stated that the expanding girders would have dislodged some of the other girders, where as willravel said it would compact into the outer supports and strengthen the structure. Turns out, we were both wrong, it was a mix:

Dilbert, this vid I watched last night helped me visualize something I could not explain and I think that it is exactly what I'm reading in your above post.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bfe0Hbgq1HY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bfe0Hbgq1HY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

yeah that sums up waht i was saying, i wish i had a budget... all i have for visual aids is mspaint...

I wouldn't even call it wierd shit, I'd call it ejected from the primary impact, all those little bits and pieces of plane, luggage, bodyparts that rained down.

It just hit me; definitive proof there was no cover-up, no conspiracy; well maybe not definitive, but definitely something to think about. If it was 'so obvious' the towers were brought down by explosives, and not terrorist, why are the insurance agencies paying out. to anyone who says there was no investigation, don’t you think the agencies that insured the building would make damn sure they did not have to cover the damages, instead of shelling out the money, the insurance agency would cry foul, and they have the money to get any investigation done, it would be insurance fraud after all.

Good question. This is my response to the hypothetical insurance fraud (thus suggesting that my response is equally hypothetical):

Insurance companies have added "terrorism" to the insurance of tens of thousands of buildings across the world. That means that their income for decades to come has been notably increased across the board. Spend $100 million now, and rake in $12 billion over the next 10 years.

It would be an investment.

as an industry, yes, as an individual business, no. the company that insured the WTC has to pay out several billion dollars (Google says 3.5 to 4.6 billion), and will not see all of your theoretical $12 billion (could be even more), if they don’t go under from the massive payout, they may eventually break even, but it wont be for several years, if not decades, by then the climate of the world could change dramatically, and make the entire 'plan' fail, as an avid investor, its to much of a risk for me to even think of trying.

I see, so the insurance industry is in on it too? :lol:

Will it might be a shorter list for you if you listed who wasn't in on it.

I was clear in what I said. If you can't keep up, hit the back button. If you can't contribute, hit the back button.

calm down will, he was joking.:icare:

Weird shit happens, huh? I'd call that purely evasive.

Since the steel began to "Bend", we'll assume that the temperature in the building was somewhere around 2500 degrees farenheit. Paper burns at 451 degrees farenheit; That's a difference of 2049 degrees farenheit.

...And yet you tell me that there's some plausible way that the government was able to recover a paper passport from the wreckage? If the (Supposed) high temperature in the towers didn't burn the passport, then the explosion caused by the plane hitting one of the twin towers would have.

Here's something to think about. The engineers who worked on the WTC buildings in the early 70's over-specified the materials used. The core supports were made of high carbon indutrial steel which doesn't begin to weaken until exposed to temperatures in excess of 2500F for several hours. They even considered the possiblility of airplane collision. However, both towers collapsed within 90 minutes. It doesn't add up.

They only considered a 707 hitting them, but what is really different about a 707 and a 767? A few more gallons of jet fuel? A few feet more from wing to wing? Even with the 707 hitting them, you would have had the jet fuel fires and the fire-proofing getting blown off.

I guess they might have just looked at it from the point that the towers remained standing for some period of time after the crash, and did not instantly fall down.

Well that’s just flat wrong, as soon as steel reaches 2500F it is weaker, it does not magically get weaker soon after heating up, it gets weaker because it is heating up. Second the steel gets weaker much sooner then that, I’m not sure where you found your numbers, but try again.

Furthermore, I can’t find any source that says the vertical structure was made from high carbon steel, can you please site a source. In my mind, a hard, ridged steel would be a bad choice for something that needs to sway in the wind.

Didn't i send you out to make me a 60ft 6inch beam with your "3000 degree" propane torch? You done yet?

. Your wacky theoretical possiblities are going to be tough to prove.

Fastom, metal does that. You have to know that. I don't work with metals daily. Call it monthly. I've built plenty of specialized prototypes and done my share of steel, iron, aluminum work, sometimes torch or oven heating to avoid problems. One inch expansion over 10ft is nothing. Barely point 8%?

Still, my shadetree experience says it's unlikely the entire 60ft beam would expand uniformly. I'll leave it to others to work out how hot over how much distance might have been plausible given what we could see of the fires.

For myself, mostly dealing with frames and assemblies of heated metals that like to creep out of square, I keep thinking about a truss design and hot spots. As trusses these are multiple pieces of metal, not just one. it makes more sense to me that parts of the truss heated unevenly which would stress and deflect weaker (weakened) parts. This would be encouraged if some parts lost their fireproofing while others did not. It doesn't take much deflection somewhere in the middle of a 60ft length to send the ends way out of spec. It would try to unbend as it cooled but damage is already done at the end points. Fasteners, welds, etc. It'll likely cool as a bent and therefore shorter assembly with impaired fasteners. Not a good recipe.

As a tinkerer and son of another I've worked with "things" almost since I could walk. Making things, changing them, watching them fail - sometimes disastrously - and while I've never had anything to do with big metal buildings I am not in the least surprised by this failure of a complex structure of metal exposed to heat. It seems completely natural to me. What seems odd is the lack of this sense by others. Yet I've helped highly educated people repair things who were completely surprised by the behavior. Given there are persistent posters in this thread who I take to be a notch above myself in intelligence, I have to assume some lack of experience coupled with distrust of the system leads to this persistent assumption it can't have happened as described.

Going way back to my first posts, IMO, without physical evidence or at least very good documentation we aren't going to find anything useful here. (that's okay, not my thread) A theorist may be better served by searching for money, other motivations, and any people involved. Look for the bigger question of why the event happened instead of spending too much time fighting what is likely the Copernican argument suggeted by USTwo.

This point has been brought up several times, but never addressed. If there was a fire hot enought to cause millions of tons of steel to give in less than an hour, how did a passport from inside the plane survive?

Where was it found? It may have shot out with other parts and only been found much later somewhere within the area of ground zero. Everything near the buildings would be subject to big wind & movement after the collapse of such large structures. A passport would be quite vulnerable to these effects.

After the impact, did you notice the rain of debris from the planes and building, it may have been among that, further, no one keeps there passport in the open air, it’s in a holder, and possibly in a bag. Do we know the circumstance of finding the passport; was it inside of a bag on the street?


I have a bit of a nasty cough right now, but as soon as I go back to work, I’ll talk with the physical science dept, see if I can barrow some Bunsen burners. Obviously I can’t do a full scale, would a 1/10th scale convince you? Expanding a 6 foot steel rod by 0.6 inches?

You've seen enough 9/11 videos, will. You should be able to answer this yourself. What did you see when the towers were burning? There was smoke, yeah, people jumping, yeah, and....papers raining down. Lots of papers. Not on fire, but raining down. What did you see after the buildings collapsed? Dust, lots of dust. 2 buildings reduced to mostly dust. but when the dust settled what did you see? papers. fully intact 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of paper. not burnt, not burning, but just lying there. balance sheets, office memos, invoices. All kinds of office papers accross dozens and dozens of blocks. How did all these papers survive when buildings literally crumbled?

A passport is nothing but paper. And, as mentioned previously, it was most likely in a carry-on and ejected with a lot of other things when the plane, travelling at 500+ mph stopped suddenly.

For the first year there was a place on prince street one could go to and see all the pictures that were submitted by regular people that wandered around lower manhattan that day. There were lots of pictures I have seen only then and never seen again, some were wreckage of the planes on the ground, most were various pictures of the towers smoking and collapsing.

sometime around that time there was another gallery that showed something that I have never seen ever again and am not sure I want to. it was some photographer who photographed the more gruesome parts of that day, puddles of hunan remains from the jumpers, body parts of people which I assume were from the plane. the most incredible thing I saw that day was the pair of bound hands, disembodied from their owner, but still bound. they weren't charred, they weren't burnt. they just were a pair of disembodied hands still bound.

how did that survive intact? I assume the same way that lots of things just did. they just did.

YOU sir were very clear. You said it was an 'investment' in other words they were in on it or just don't want to know the truth because it makes them more money. IF you meant something else please clarify. You have made a lot of unproven and wild claims I don't see why this one would make you upset.

Will my boy you are wrong in this, time to take a deep breath and change that warped world view of yours.

Ustwo, Funny how its just as correct when reversed. Why that would be?

If the WTC 'bombing' was an 'investment' lets get that cleared up.

Are the insurance companies willing accomplaces?

Do they join the flight crews, airlines, ground crews, controll tower, familes of the people on the flights, demolition experts, spin doctors, the people on the 'flights', Osama Bin Ladin, NIST, several members of the armed forces, and others who would need to be 'in on it' or 'elminated' to make these theories even begin to hold water?

the yellow word of god is right... will was answering a hypothetical question with a hypothetical answer, will does not nesisarily beilve what he said, i was just asking for a counter...

will what do you think of our explination of the passport so far.

The passport wasn't on a desk on the 14th floor, it was "theoretically" in the plane that hit the building and burst into "2500 degree" flames... that melted the aluminum into cascading puddles and turned the steel girders into goo. There's a huge difference between that and 70th floor faxes or Windows on the World menus that were in parts of the building not burning.

If a passport was in a bag or the mythical hijackers pocket how do you suppose it got to where it was found. Logic says it couldn't happen so add that to the long list of really curious coincidences.

and the bound hands that were not singed?

there are lots of things that survive plane crashes with fireballs, flight 800 to name one, along with the one above Queens just 2 months after 9/11 had objects that survived fireballs.

http://911review.org/images/pentagon/wtc-Impact_4.jpg

See all that crap, guess what much of that crap was. Plane parts, building parts, people parts, luggage, passports, dilbert cartoons from cubicals, etc. Are you trolling or do you really not understand anything in physics? Seriously.

The passport was one that belonged to one of the terrorists, Satam Al Suqami (not Atta, a common mistake). The passport was in such good condition that they were able to see the picture of the man and read his name clearly. The core of the North Tower (WTC 1), the tower that Satam Al Suqami's plant hit, absorbed almost all of the airplane. The plane hit nearly the exact center of the building heading straight on. The only part of the plane that exited the building was the landing gear that landed near West St.

In the WTC 2, South Tower crash, the plane did not hit in a central location and because of this landing gear, and engine and part of the fuseloge were found on the top of WTC 5 and a few blocks away near the corner of Church and Park.

The reason I am very skeptical about the passport should be clear. No luggage from the plane, be it carry on or stowed away, was recovered. Nothing. Not an iPod, not a Samsonite bag, not a ticket. Nothing. And yet, depiste being in a horrific crash, and seeing temperatures that we can't even agree on (certianally hot enough to burn paper, I sure we can agree), this passport survived unharmed. The passport should have been inside of some luggage, a pocket; somewhere other than being out in the open. The passport was found inside no container, though. We also do not know the identity of the person who found the passport, as it is classified. Please feel free to call the FBI to confirm. The passport has not been seen by any members of the AP. The story was covered by ABC on 9/12/01, though it has been subsequently removed from the website. Luckly, it has been cashed by another website.

Your logic is flawed. The plane was ripped apart on impact, it is highly likely that parts flew out the other side, we have video evidence, and parts found in the street that say that is a fact. It is possible that among the things that flew out was a carry-on owned by the terrorist.

As for the 'mythical' hijackers:
You really must start reading my post, i already showed you that the terrorist did board the plane:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics...screening3.jpg

Just because the evidence does not support you, does not mean you can ignore it.

More on the passport for you will:
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

It’s a good read, not only was the passport found, and anonymously given to a law official, they did not leave a name, either planted evidence, or, in a hurry to get the hell out of there... Many other things survived, like 2 letters, which some one picked up and mailed, they belonged to some one on the plane, and survived the impacts.

Actually that was a myth about the mail surviving. I'm still looking (does anyone have a nyt.com account?), but I've read that they had to make a correction.
[QUOTE=What does it add to the story?[/QUOTE]
Just so we're clear, basically no evidence has been released linking the suspected terrorists listed by the FBI. The video above is of such low quality that I actually recognize a friend of mine, Omid, on the right. FYI, Omid is still alive! So what would a passport prove? Well, it would prove that Satam Al Suqami was on the plane.

The picture of the ground covered with paper? Well the WTC Towers were office buildings. Do you think they had paper in them?

Huh? So what your saying is, even though I have people saying they received a letter some one found in the wreckage, you’re calling them liars, please back that up.

huh, I give you a picture of the terrorist going through security, and all you can say is it looks like some guy you know, so it cant be the. Don’t you realize that they check the man against the passport picture; they would have noticed if it was some one other then the person in the photo. I don’t get you, and you can ignore this evidence with out a second thought?

Yes, I'm looking for the info, like I said.
The blurry picture of a man who could be one of the terrorists is hardly strong evidence. This is clear to me because the picture could easily pass for someone I know. How many other people could that picture pass for?

It's weak evidence.

What I am saying is that the person who walked through those gates, had a passport with his picture on it, the screeners had to check the picture against the person. Unless everyone who checks ID in the place was in the conspiracy...

Did you ever sneak into a club when you were underaged? If those places get caught, they get like a $40,000 fine, and yet I was able to get in using my friend's ID. We really look nothing alike at all, just brown hair and brow eyes, but I got in numerous times. How is that possible? Well, a picture that is an inch across isn't super-reliable, and these people look at IDs all day long (just as was the case with the alledged hijacker).

With the severe nature of such a crime you can bet the perpetrators went to some great lengths to plan it, whether you belive it was some Muslim students or Dubya and his cronies. Planting phony evidence is a pretty simple thing.
On this "bound hands" thing, you mean tied together? Who's to say that's from the plane, maybe a worker in the WTC did find the explosives and got caught? Maybe some office S&M? I'm glad i didn't have to look at those pictures, sounds pretty grim.

Come on will I'm waiting.

Are the insurance companies in on it too?

I guess you only look where you want to look and see what you want to see, any google of "bound hands" comes up with plenty.

from snopes.com
from cooperativeresearch.org

Well, it turns out the Boston Globe was on the ball that morning. They got a flight manifest from AA, and made a nice pretty graphic too:

http://graphics.boston.com/news/pack...1_manifest.gif

What do we have, all the suspected terrorist are on the list, in the correct seat, don’t you think if they were not on the manifest they received, they’d cry foul? Or do we add the Boston Globe to the list of conspirators now too.

You're doing a lot of good research, Dilbert, something that the Boston Globe should try doing. Look at the graphic. Look at the names of the suspected terrorists. Guess how many of them are still alive?

Waleed M. Alshehri, Wail M. Alshehri, and Abdulaziz Alomari are all still alive as of today. So not only did a passport survive the crash, but these men did too. Were they in the debris flying out the window? Did they fall into a giant truck hauling pillows, in some odd cartoonish coincedence? Doubtful.

Now I must ask you: if the Boston Globe is found to be severly lacking in the investigative department, so much so that they are completly wrong about 3/5 of the terrorists on Flight 11, is it possible that other newspapers and media outlets are wrong aswell? Is it possible that they simply took the government's word as gospel and didn't ask the right questions?

well first, this is a flight manifest, not a list of who was on the plane, just who was signed up, second, I’m sure there are 50, maybe 100 Waleed M. Alshehri in the world, I know of 5 people who share my given name, and 1 that has the same middle name as me as well. Is it possible that the people you are quoting are just as mistaken by another of the same name? How do they 'know' they are still alive? I can find no evidence that they are, just people saying they are.

and these men, have appeared on Al Jazzera or other media outlet to show that they are alive and well?

Dil has trouble but i can often tell when somebody is still alive. ;)

Seems there has been a lot of mismatching between the original lists and republished ones. The numbers kept changing.

If this were a less serious crime like ordinary murder and the judge was reviewing evidence that shows the number of victims changing and some are still alive... hmmm... perhaps that's part of the plan. Any prosecution would result in a mistrial.

Look at the date on this article... just 12 days after...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

The last line... "FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt."

But i guess they decided "Close enough, let's go with that".

Hmmm seems like we've moved from steel beams to passports/papers to people who may or may not have been hijackers without any kind of agreement or even agreement to disagree.

will, i thought you wanted to direct this a bit more orderly, or was that a different 9/11 thread?

real quick..........HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF IDENTITY THEFT?????

that is all.

I am not saying I believe any of what I am about to write but that it is a possibility that has not been mentioned with regards to the passport.


Maybe there is a conspiracy and there isn't a conspiracy.

Suppose (1) their is no conspiracy behind the actual destruction of the towers. Please, just suppose that was the case for a second.

Suppose (2) there was a conspiracy, however, to get an answer to the American Public, to put faces on the murderers and create an enemy, and maybe even to provide just cause for the invasion of Afganistan to go after Bin Laden. Please, just suppose that was also the case for a second.

If these were true then it is possible that the passport was placed on the scene after the fact by the conspirators behind the 2nd supposition above.

This theory separates the crashing of the planes and destruction of the towers from the finding of the passport in good shape in the rubble.

Again I am not saying that any of these suppositions are true I am just saying that it is possible that both sides of the discussion are partly correct.

What I am saying is that whether the passport is there due to conspiracy or not, that has nothing to do with the way the buildings came down.
What I am also saying is that there maybe differing levels of conspiracy that people in this discussion are willing to believe exist.

Fatsom's BBC atrticle covers it quite well. These are the men implicated in the attacks, and these men are still alive. Several of them HAVE gone on TV in the ME, and have been identified by friends. What this suggests is there was identity theft, and we still have absolutely no idea who supposedly hijacked the planes. What does this imply? Well, it implies that a great deal of evidence surround the attack is suspect, specifically the intel on the motives and capabilities of the supposed hijackers. Even the links to OBL would have to be in question if we had no idea who the hijackers were.

"But Will, you brilliant man, Osama admitted to planning the attacks! I saw him speaking it in Arabic on CNN, being translated by some british guy!!"
Basically, yes. Think about that, though. At first, no one took responsibility, then after a few weeks OBL takes responsibility? Also, do you think he might have a motive to lie? I certianally think so. Why would a known terrorist want to take advantage of the ultimate vehicle for his propoganda?

That was the thread in Politics which I started. I didn't start the "what happened on 9/11" thread here in Paranoia. Here in Paranoia, I imagine we are allowed to make bigger leaps and such.

Ok, he is alive, that is evidence saying that a man with that name is alive... still does not mean that another man on the flight that hijacked it, did not have the same name, or claimed to have the same name as Stevo points out.

Stolen identity anyone?

I’m all for saying the government is incompetent, I fully believe they were, and still are incompetent, they may have gotten some of the names wrong. Still does not change the fact that planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers, which were the sole cause of the towers collapse.

I thought I was in the thread you were trying to guide, my apologies. I was under this impression because I recall you being upset that people didn't want to stay the course of your dialogue. was that this thread or the other?

thanks for the clarification.

Of course the identity was stolen, and of course the government at large is incompetent. Please understand that the dicussion about the passport, then later the identity theft, had nothing to do with my agruments about the physics of the collapses. I hope that's clear. I was trying to point out that the intel from the government, in it's entirity, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Most of the stuff they release is only partially true, and is lined with BS to suit their needs. Because of that whenever we hear stuff like, "The money trail leads back to Osama", but we know the funding was Saudi (something that most everyone on the conspiracy and non-conspiracy sides agree on), we can say, "Silly government, propoganda's for kids." The idea is that no one should take the government's word at face value.

I do believe there are a lot of questions revolving the US invading Iraq, I firmly believe some levels of our government knew they did not have a credible argument for invasion, but by selectively showing the evidence, we went anyways. I still think it is more plausible, that some one in the intelligence screwed it up, either IDing the wrong man, or being fooled by fake ID's and counter intelligence.

yes I do think some of the intel may be wrong, but most is right, I think that some in our intelligence community either were fooled by fake id's (and aliases) or that they confused 2 people with the same name, and gathered intel on both people thinking they were one in the same.

Hahaha! Yes, that was the other one. I had been trying to get the topic of 9/11 into Politics for about a year, and I got the green light from Tec, Uber, and some other mods. That thread was to be 100% scientific, asking and answering questions that were provable and had nothing to do with conjecture or rumor or speculation. That was a very tedious task, and the thread has since fallen into obscurity (thanks in no small part to the continuing efforts of certian board members who are unable to keep their insults to themselves). I did manage to keep the thread from being moved to Paranoia, though, and I figured that was a small victory. I spent half the time in that thread asking questions and following science, and the other half trying desperatly to keep those who shall remain nameless from destroying the thread through flaming and personal attacks.

I think I just spilled my burrito on my hat. Damn it.

and it should be taken with a grain of salt, however, when we have several independent organizations consisting of physics majors, construction majors and other people who would have a valid viewpoint on the collapse, saying it could have happened; and on the other side we have a handful of people saying it can’t, some of which have degrees, most of which do not. I have to go with the side that has more credible people. There has been plenty of independent research into this by credible organizations, who did full scale fire test to estimate the heat and temperature, who ran computer simulations to see the effects on the building and saw the structural failure the fire caused to say it did not happen.

I don’t trust most things this administration says, or the mainstream media for that matter. has anyone seem who bad Afghanistan is getting in the news, no, cause its not being mention on the news, its all going to hell but not being reported on. With everything I post, I make sure there are several other sources that agree with it, not just some guy with an opinion and web space.

Back this administration, they are very careful not to outright lie, although they do some times, most of what they say is a stretch of the truth. I’d give examples, but I don’t think any one here will disagree with me, if you do, let me know and I’ll find some.

I have not read up on the money connection, what I do know is that OBL is wealthy, his family is wealthy, but they have disowned him. As for Saudi connection, I don’t know.

i tried to keep that one on track too, but uh... yeah people who will remain nameless stopped that one dead...
food goes in mouth, not in hat:icare:

napkins, napkins on the lap to catch the burrito and not the hat... catch baseballs with the hat not burritos!

I do find this intereseting...

"the government is incompetent" but they are competent enough to "pull off a conspiracy like 9/11"

that just dawned on me...

Just think back to water gate, they could not even pull of a simple breaking and entering. i know, different set of people, but same idea.

Well I was careful to say "the government at large", but I do see what you mean. Think fo this, though. The war on Iraq was supported by many people in the beginning, and only really started to lose it's core support when it was clear we wern't going to win. After all that is when the inforamtion about their being no links to 9/11 and the al Queda, and no WMDs came to light. Pressure from the public forced the information to the surface. I don't see that happening on the same scale with 9/11. Even if I am wrong about a possible larger conspiracy, there were still massive mistakes that lead to 9/11, and the 9/11 Commission was a fucking joke. People deserve to know the whole truth, and they deserve closure. The only real pressure right now on the government for 9/11 truth is from guys like me; conspiracy theorists. The government, instead of simply answering the questions, has taken it upon themselves to simply call us all nuts and be done with it. Independant organizations have tried to point out flaws, like NIST, but they themselves have screwed up on their explainations (I'll get to them when I get home, and I have access to my notes).

Getting back to the point: I don't know who is responsible. It's obviously not going to be the whole government. It could be small and specific areas. Underwriters Labs, the ones who did the actual research for the NIST report, have a vested interest in pleasing the government who gives grants and contracts out to organizations that do them favors.

It was not just the public, it was worldly, and forces with in our government too, and experts within the government saying there was more to the story.

Yes there were, but then again, the attacks were impossible to stop, would you have shot down the planes? The only way we can truly be safe is to give up all freedom, and live in a police state. Until that day we must live with risk, and understand that we live in a bit of danger everyday.

I don’t think it was a joke, please when you get home post some examples.


But its not only the NIST that did research, many other organizations have, and come to the same conclusions, and many other experts agree with these findings, if a building of that size should not fall straight down, don’t you think every physicist in the country would be calling it wrong? What do we see; just a hand full of people with out physics degree’s saying its wrong.

Most of the government officials that have joined the 9/11 truth movement have lost their jobs.
They wouldn't have been impossible if the course set by Clinton were kept.
Richard Clark was a very prominant name in the recent Wallace/Clinton interview. This man knew his shit, but as soon as Bush moved in, Clark was demoted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission
NIST and Popular Mechanics. Who else?

Also, many members of the 9/11 truth movement are scientists.

cover-up... or get rid of the crack pots...

I’m not sure if it would have happened if Clinton was still in power, physically it could still happen people could hijack the planes and crash them, however, Clinton did a lot to bring the world together and make people like us. However under bush we lost allot of respect and pissed allot of people off. I do believe it could have happened, but I don’t know if it would or not. A crazy man who wants to kill, will kill, plane and simple, the government can’t be everywhere at every time.

Claims of bias within the commission
I hope that they can keep an impartial view on the issue, no one in America was untouched by 9/11 it is impossible to find some one impartial, some had conflicts of interest, the major ones were removed. A lot of the conflicts of interest were airline related, and I’m sure, the report came off friendly towards the airlines because of it, however, that does not affect the fact that the planes were hit by planes, and the planes brought them down.
Claims of lack of cooperation from the White House
I know there was resistance, there would be resistance under any administration, someone fucked up and this terrible event happened. They should have been more open, but this does not show guilt of a conspiracy, just that they are covering there asses.

Commissioners Suspected the Pentagon was Deceiving the Commission
Yup, they fucked up and this happened; now they have to explain how, but eventually they were subpoenaed and coughed up the info.

Claims that the investigation lacked adequate funds
Well it was given the funds they asked for, after some resistance, but they got the money they wanted.

Claims the commission was used for partisan purposes
I’m sure it was, by both sides. No cover-up, just crappy politics.

Claims the commission ignored or censored key government evidence
I agree that ignoring the previous evidence is wrong, but still all that evidence shows is that the terrorist did want to harm us.

Claims the commission ignored information regarding Able Danger
This is ‘he said she said’ the committee says he is not credible and has no evidence, he says the evidence was destroyed. This really can’t be answered, his evidence no longer exists, either it never did or it was destroyed. If there was no evidence, the committee was right to dismiss him.

Claims of gentle treatment of Rudy Giuliani
I think they should have grilled him harder, but really what could he have done, he runs the city, but on a disaster of that scale, he is not responsible for what happened.


Perdue University did some great simulations, there was a Japanese group that did one and several others, I’ll find some for you.

C'mon he's still the President! :)

So we agree the government is a bunch of doofuses... errr doofi, and too damn stupid to pull off such a thing and that "intelligence community" is maybe a misnomer.

I doubt that the whole 9/11 thing would ever have happened if Bush wasn't in power.

I should clarify, i am not jumping to your side and believing in terrorists and fire weakened steel or such things.

Somebody obviously had to plan the attacks, if it wasn't the group of Saudi students then who?
What about stock trading beforehand?

In this picture...
http://911review.com/myth/imgs/eh_wtc4.jpg

... you can see the top several floors tilt over. What broke this up into tiny fragments? There isn't any weight on it. If it continued down like it's going it would have probably smashed just the one side of the building below and landed on it's side next to the rest of the rubble.

For the put options:
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

American airlines was falling like a rock before then, many believed it would fall farther, therefore, they placed put options on it.

For the rotation:
the side that collapsed first stopped supporting the upper building, so it fell, since the upper stories were still whole, it rotated slightly, but the rest of the floors at the impact gave way, and the upper part smashed down, the rotation speed was minimal, and the speed down was much greater, that’s why it did not rotate very much at all. Further more, the upper floors broke because of the impact with the floors below the plane impact, the floors are designed to stay level, as the impacted on an angle, they are not designed to support that kind of load.

Bush was only inaugurated in January of 2001. The planning of theses attacks, whether you believe the conspiracy or not, pre-date the Bush II administration.

Also Clinton was inaugurated in January 1993 a month before the first WTC bombings.

Would it have happened if Clinton was still in Power?
You could say yes or you could say no. I just see no reason for saying no.

well after the attack on the USS Cole, Clinton wanted to attack back, but could not because the FBI and CIA would say for certain that it was OBL, if Clinton was still in power, and had hit OBL for the USS Cole bombing, maybe, just maybe it could have stopped the attacks, on the off chance that some of them were with him at the time of our reprisal. Things would be different though, if we still were hit, as soon as the CIA and FBI confirmed OBL we would have hit OBL in Afghanistan, quick and hard with missiles, and then gone in and removed OBL and the Taliban with troops.

I am pretty sure we still would have had 9/11, but there is a small chance we would not have. Fact is bush did nothing, he was given a plan from Clinton, which bush ignored that plan, and he sat on his hands and did nothing. This is one reason I think they stonewalled the investigation.

Because the first WTC bombing did not occur under Clinton? The years of planning required for such an endeaver (like pilot training, funding, placing the terrorist in America) took only the months that Bush was in office?

OBL does not care if the President of the US is apologetic or hard lined. He wants us militarily and financially destroyed regardless.

to seaver, and everyone else, can we please start citing who we quote, its easy, if you did not know, inside of the of the first quote inside of brackets, make it quote=name

[quote=some guy]

I'm sure Al Gore would have been decisive and stopped the terrorist attack on 9/11.

But its time to get back to asking...

Will, I'm not clear still, were the insurance companies in on it too?

I watched this last night, well some of it before I went to bed on Discovery Times channel. I have seen footage of that day I never had seen before.

Attack on the Pentagon

Examine the day Flight 77 flew into one of the most famous buildings in the world. Through eyewitness accounts, follow the 757 as it descended to within 3,000 feet of the White House, banked over the Potomac, turned and attacked the Pentagon.

SEP 28 2006
@ 10:00 AM

OCT 01 2006
@ 07:00 PM

OCT 30 2006
@ 04:00 PM

Well Dil is at least partly on the right track. The Presi-dunce is responsible for the lack of followup... c'mon it's like a bad joke. Get in a car accident that draws blood and you ain't moving the car till they investigate. Here they shovel the whole friggin' works off to the dump... no, worse... they send it to be recycled... destroyed. So that nobody will ever find out the truth. We can point out inconsistancies, we can scoff at their lame explanations but actual prove-it-in-court evidence was destroyed.

That is not by accident or oversight. It's criminal contempt.

…and just plain wrong; the last of the steel was removed in may 2002, and Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team said they had plenty of time

http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

I don't buy that. In an airplane crash they sometimes reassemble the whole plane from the tiny scraps recovered. Stuff was being trucked out of the WTC site very soon afterwards.

Here's a more truthful explanation...
http://911review.com/coverup/fema_wtc.html

NTSB reassembles planes. I have seen them do that, but no one has EVER reassembled a real building.

Or....is HE in on it too! *dun dun dun!*

The point is that it was shipped off and melted down so quickly. This is the first time in history that a steel reinforced building has fallen due to fire. You'd think that they'd want to take a look. FEMA had something like 12 hours before it started getting shipped off, and most of that investigation was going on when rescue workers with buckets were trying to get rubble off bodies.

Had I been the head of FEMA, I would have requestewd at least a few weeks to study some of the wrekage. Yes, clear the roads. Yes, make sure that the air is clean and that the disruptions are cleared.

from what I have seen, there are people who have some samples of the steel. the one video I linked has some in it and someone discussing effects on it.

How much steel did they need to preserve?

:lol: :lol:

Maybe they weren't counting on the 10,000 man conspiracy requiring them to save every last scrap to keep the fringe happy.

Yes, some people took some home and some of that steel was given to FEMA later. From interviews, though, basically no steel, and very little debris at all were recovered.




Ustwo, apparently you no longer can contribute anything in Paranoia or Politics besides flame bait and personal attacks. You don't respond to people who question the logic of your posts (see "Ustwo, why do you condone torture?" that still goes unanswered, presumabaly because you have no reasonable explaination), you defend your personal attacks with more personal attacks, and you generally laugh at people. When I ask why, you suggest that you have somehow already proved me wrong, and this is the resulting victory dance. Now if you have conctributed to this thread like Dilbert, Cynth, Samcol or myself, I'd probably let it fly. This is Paranoia, after all, and there is some level of leeway here that you wouldn't find in Politics. You haven't. I can go back page after page and find personal attacks and flame, and almost no arguments to the subject at hand. Have you read the FEMA report? Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? Have you read the NIST report? It's obvious that you haven't. Let's look at your last few contributions:
All flame and personal attacks. No actual content. No arguments. No points.

You've tried to latch on to Dilbert or Cynth's points as if they were your own, then you used them as a platform on which to shout from.

I would appreciate it if you made some effort to become an active member in the discussion. I would aprpeciate it if you were to argue points based on merrit instead of personal attacks and flame. I would appreciate it if you were to show some respect for the other members of this community. I would appreciate it if you made an effort to follow the rules and guidlines of TFP. Let me know if you plan on making an effort in any of these areas. Until you do, you will continue to be scoffed at by the contributors, be they liberal or conservative. It's a damn shame, too. We all know how bright you are. You could have wonderful contributions, like you do outside of Politics and Paranoia. You could be a benifit to everyone here.

//threadjack

CORRECTION: Plane crash and ensuing fire.

I've noticed you like to say the buildings fell because of a fire. But thats not ture, or not the whole truth. The buildings fell because ginormous jetliners crashed into them destabilizing the structures and causing fires that burned uncontrolled for more than an hour. If you think the crash had no impact on the fall then please say so.

This is the first time in history a steel reinforced building has fallen due to fire. This is the furst time in history a steel reinforced building has fallen due to a plane crash. This is the first time in history that a stee reinforced building has fallen from a plane crash, and ensuing fire. This is the first time an airliner has been used as a missle in a terrorist attack. This is the first time a whole building on US soil has fallen due to a terrorist attack.

Do you feel better now? I do.

Actually, yes! TY :thumbsup:

The director of the study said they had enough time and pieces, unless everyone involved in the report is part of the conspiracy that stands as fact that they had enough time and access. It was trucked out because it was a pile of rubble, you cant study a pile of rubble, you need to look through it, which was done as it was moved to the junk yard, where it was reexamined, and then recycled.

SHUSH your blowing my cover ;)


It was quick, but it was still enough time to do an examination. The examination did not end when the rubble was removed, that was just the start, and they also had full access to the junkyard it was sent too. As for the ‘first steel building junk’ it is true that this is the first steel building to collapse, but its also the first steel truss building to be hit with a fire this bad, and a plane on top of it, steel trusses are very susceptible to fire, and having the fire protection blown off from the impact made it all the worse. A fire can take down a steel truss building, especially if it has the fire proofing removed. You cannot compare a fire in a steal building to a fire in a steel truss building, they are not the same, they are Very different.

Everything was recovered, Everything. If it was at the building before hand, it was there when it was shipped to the junkyard; we did not have any matter changing into energy or vice versa. I don’t know who you are quoting as little was recovered, but they are wrong, flat out wrong.

And we all learned that a group of psychos can defeat all out protections, and cause us harm we need to pick our selves up accept that we live with risk and get on with our lives. The oceans no longer protect us as they used to. We live in a dangerous world.

What do you mean by steel building? Do you mean steel reinforced? A truss system is a type of steel reinforcement.

If you mean a building made completly of steel, then that's a very interesting idea I'd like to explore further. Wouldn't it get really hot in the summer?
The steel was shipped off, most of it to India, where it was melted down. Some of that steel is being used to create a naval military vessal, as I understand it.
The oceans do keep us safe from the aliens from Signs.

I realize that this was a wake up call, and I think we can all agree on that point. The question is: who should we be afraid of? I'll leave that to you to decide.

I mean up until 9/11 the only fires that burned in steel buildings (that were serious) were in buildings with out steel trusses.
The steel trusses are designed with summer heat in mind, and the heat from summer is not really enough to do that much expansion, unless things are poorly planed (see the train tracks I’ve posted a few times)
The steel first went to the junk yard, where they had plenty of time to look it over, as I have said already, they said they had all the time they needed with it.
Never saw it, any good? I’m wary of Mel Gibson

the government, we should not fear the terrorist, that is what they want, we should raise the middle finger to say ‘FUCK YOU, were gona keep living like we want to live in our country’, we should have rebuilt the towers to look the same, (with a new structure design to fix the problems of the originals) and kept on going. As for the government we should fear how they will abuse the fear our nation is undergoing. Anyone see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRjbIQMXGQ
Scares the Crap out of me... what we did is wrong, and punishable by death, so let’s pardon our selves under the guise of national security. I call bull shit on that. (I disagree with the death penalty, but that’s a different thread.)