What really happened ....11 september

Quote from Haroki:

Again, it's your OPINION that the links , etc aren't honest in their assessment of 9/11. And all because YOU don't want to believe it. Your beliefs mean nothing, son, it's what you can prove.
More...



i can demolish u and your links in five second: like the fema/nist reports, the links contain a huge number of distortions, misinformation, outright lies and straw man tactics; most of the material is not sincere and very unfair and superficial in its critics against others scientists work. that's not my opinion, it's all highlighted in the links below. also read what's written below the madrid bdg photo on your dear debunking crap..that's right, it's written that it never caught fire and it's an outright lie, a denial of historical facts and told on purpose to discredit the idea fire could not have possibly been the culprit for the collapse. and to be clear about prof jones i don't think his work is shabby at all as u say below, infact his presentations are impressive and very detailed, analyzing enormous quantities of material that the nist conveniently left out: that in itself is commendable, nist report pales in contrast. my criticism towards him is directed at his failure to consider scary alternatives that would make the case for an inside job, as well as other alternative that would not, in those particular instances, support govt involvement scenarios. i know these subtleties have very little meaning to u but that's the way a fair investigation should be approached.

popular mechanics/debunking sites exposed and thorn to pieces, point by point by 2 different pieces of work:

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm



And here's the problem , at it's heart, that I have with so many of the CT'ers claims - I find the level of poor investigation, poor science, mis quoting, partial quoting, quote mining,etc to be indicative of someone with a purely political motive - ie, it is my belief that they are so against the Iraq war, that any lie is ok to tell - the end justifies the means. As you yourself admit, Prof Jones work is pretty shabby. In my opinion, they're all shabby. The only slick thing about the movement is the use of lots of utube videos, since we as humans are much more affected emotionally through visual input, and emotions have the ability to suspend critical thinking......
More...


utter rubbish. it's YOU now carrying the burden of proof to highlight what has been misquoted and quote mined. prove that relevant material contains false premises and information otherwise zip it. visual evidence, especially in this case, wherein the attack have been caught on camera and numerous witnesses have spoken out in front of the camera is of upmost relevance, to say otherwise is completely misguiding.

Poor answer regarding the fire proofing.... So what are they protecting against, if it isn't to protect the buildings from collapsing/failing? Safe as possible from what? Think about 1&2. Why would there be insulation on the trusses, specifically? Would it prevent fire from spreading? No, the trusses are an open web. What explanation do you have? ANd who said that insulation is the only thing holding up the building? You trying to put words in my mouth?
How dishonest if you are....
More...


failing and collapsing are two different things, that's my point: the madrid bdg was completely enveloped by a raging inferno lasting more than 1 day, yet it stood; fireproofing could not have played much of a role. u cant make a case for the towers to be weaker because i can demolish that as well: first the core was surrounded by concrete as well, a massive wall of concrete to be precise, second contrary to all the misinformation about the towers structure thrown around in this thread they both as well had many steel reinforced floors that offered massive resistance in case of structural failure. one of those floor is the 76th and funny how a squib was seen exactly coming off there and other squibs from the very same pivotal floors. third, the core columns were absolutely HUGE and extremely THICK; much more numerous, stronger and larger than portrait by nist and surely than those of the madrid bdg. i have a link of a detailed video animation here proving that and it should eliminate any doubt that the towers could NOT be brought down by fire, that is a bloody fairy tale: the towers core was a like a massive fortress, the core of the madrid bdg is a fucking joke in comparison. nist will have to drop the fire theory sooner or later, there's just not 2ways around it.

will post the video and some photographs with telling analisys later.
 
Quote from Bitstream:

i can demolish u ... is of upmost [utmost] relevance... larger than portrait [portrayed]...analisys [analysis] later.
More...

Indeed.

One thing I have learned here is just how much time these CT'ers spend compiling 'evidence'. In this sense, the internet is basically responsible for the legs this myth has, because of the ability for anyone to post doctored images or pseudo-scientific 'analisys'. This 'analisys' is gobbled up by the credulous.

I hate to mention this, but... the apparent lack of education evinced by the CTers here explains why pseudo-scientific writing can engender in them the belief that what they are reading must be the truth. To their ears, it sounds like science. They are unfortunately unable to subject these documents to rigorous scientific analysis, mostly because of their inability to handle the language. Pictures of squid, are, of course, much easier to understand. I saw some sort of heatmap image posted yesterday. To me, nothing more needs to be said after seeing that image posted as proof that the Bush family planned and executed 9/11.

It's not surprising, given what these folks have invested in their beliefs, that they are uneasy when the basic tenets of those beliefs are questioned.

Once again, this thread is just like the ID threads. The whole conversation comes to a grinding halt when the believers are asked for proof.
 
Quote from Bitstream:

the towers[sic] core was a like a massive fortress
More...


Fascinating that even after being shown the blueprints which reveal the towers' essentially exoskeletal structure, we are still reading statements like these.

Shows the power of faith.
 
Quote from Bitstream:

failing and collapsing are two different things, that's my point: the madrid
bdg was completely enveloped by a raging inferno lasting more than 1 day, yet
it stood;
More...

To be sure, the building partially collapsed, but stood. The perimeter support
columns failed on the upper stories, leaving the reinforced concrete
core exposed and standing.


fireproofing could not have played much of a role.
More...

On what basis do you say that?

The Madrid building had extensive passive fireproofing for its steel
structural members, due to its relatively traditional concrete masonry + steel
frame construction. It had no active fireproofing, and it was in fact in the
process of being renovated to add active fireproofing systems when the fire
broke out.

Now why is it that fireproofing is universally used to protect structural
steel in steel frame buildings, including the Madrid Windsor building?

The basic reason is: it is very well known that structural steel has
properties that change very significantly when it is heated above room
temperatures.

Steel deforms far more easily once its temperature is raised to 400-500 C than
it does when it is cold. Also, the cold yield strength of steel is far greater
than the hot yield strength. This fact is employed in a commonly
used technique for forming enormous steel bridge girders to precisely fit
roadway curves in road bridges. Girders are first heated to the region of 400
C and they can then be deformed into shape by applying relatively small
lateral bending forces.

Just as importantly, even before reaching 500 C steel expands
considerably as it is heated. If steel beams are heated non-uniformly, as can
be pretty generally expected to happen in the case of a building fire, then
thermal expansion will produce non-uniform stresses on any structural beams
that are exposed and heated to high temperature, as well causing stresses on
the beams to which they are attached. Such stresses, caused by thermal
expansion alone, could reach yield levels, even in moderate fire conditions.

Temperatures in the region of 400-500 C are easily achievable, even in
diffuse flame, fuel rich fires.

So all steel frame buildings would be vulnerable to collapse in fire, if it
were not that fireproofing of some form were employed in the construction, to
prevent structural steel from being rapidly heated. It would be sheer lunacy
to build a steel frame building without using some form of fireproofing for
the steel support members.

In case of a fully developed building fire, such as occurred in Madrid, where
the building did not fully collapse, there can be little doubt that passive
fireproofing played a role in the long survival time of the building. However
there are other reasons why this building survived so long relative to the WTC
towers.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

`Crucially, the building remained standing despite the intensity of the
fire. An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac
and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the
concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete
Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical
floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete
columns and core prevented total building collapse.

(emphasis added)

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

`The building had a concrete central core with two rows of reinforced
concrete columns in the north-south direction, aligned with the core side
walls. The structure above ground was characterised by two transition floors
at 3rd and 17th Floor levels, which housed plant and services.'

So we see that the central core of the Madrid/Windsor building, which bore the
major fraction of the vertical load on the core in compression, was
constructed using reinforced concrete as the major load bearing
material.

This fact may very well account for the building's extraordinarily good fire
resistance.

u can't make a case for the towers to be weaker because i can
demolish that as well: first the core was surrounded by concrete as well, a
massive wall of concrete to be precise.
More...

There was a massive wall of concrete around the base of the core: 17
feet thick at that point. This wall did not extend all the way up the
towers. In any case, concrete was not employed for bearing the gravity load in
the WTC. This load was transmitted to ground at the foundation on bedrock,
through compression of the steel core columns and the steel perimeter tube
columns.

The cores were rectangular areas 27m by 41m containing the 47 steel load
bearing columns which extended from the foundation above the bedrock to the
top of the tower. The four corner columns were larger than the all the rest in
the core and bore about 20% of the vertical load on the core. All of the core
columns were, of course, tapered with height, and the construction of them
varied with height, becoming in general lighter as one moved higher in the
building.

The twin towers can be roughly described as being primarily of lightweight
steel construction, having to be sure, a very high degree of structural
redundancy due to the large number of support columns on the peripheral load
bearing exterior walls and also in the core, but also leaving a very high percentage of
empty space in the building, approaching in fact about 95%.

a bloody fairy tale: the towers core was a like a massive fortress,
the core of the madrid bdg is a fucking joke in comparison. nist will have to
drop the fire theory sooner or later, there's just not 2ways around
it.
More...

The core of the Madrid building was no joke at all. It was constructed very
well when it came to fire resistance, since it utilized reinforced concrete
for the load bearing columns.

Cheers!
 
Quote from ratboy88:

maybe it's one of these:



<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SUdB9yhKdT4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SUdB9yhKdT4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
More...
there was an UFO filmed next to WTC??? and when
was that? on 911?

do i sense correctly that this thread is a little .. changing?
 
Quote from man:

wait a minute. it 2007 now. there is footage showing
this whatever? and it just appeared, the footage i mean?
and it was not adressed anywhere?
More...

nah, it didn't just appear outta thin air, that footage
has been around for long. they just didnt notice at first, and when they did couldn't find and logical explanation for that. still, big whoop.
 
Quote from neophyte321:

why don't you post the documents?
More...

Why? It's not that hard to find. There are a few articles on it, by mid-large city newspapers, but no major one like New York Times or the sort.

Unlike Bitstream, I do not care to prove anything to those who already made up their mind. It's really not in my interest. I do not really care to prove anything to anyone, because if the person was really interested in analyzing & researching the situation, he/she would do it themselves, instead of taking the official word for it. I can present my line of thinking and some reasons for it, but I have little interest in going into serious details, especially when there is an automatic response and bias of "conspiracy nut" from 90% of you. But I wanted to test something, so that's why I posted.

I dunno, maybe it is just me, but there are WAY too many clues that point to the fact that 9/11 was an awaited event for several geopolitical, mercantilistic & financial/economic reasons.
The FBI and CIA are VERY effective when they NEED to get something done. The fact is that FBI knew the date of the attack and the target. Period. No excuses for the lack of action & prevention by form of mess ups, miscommunication, etc. can really be made, based on what these agencies have accomplished in the past on a 1/10 of the information. Mainstream knowledge even points that there was at least one report that Bush oversaw about the plot, month prior to the event. You know, the whole 9/11 commission was formed because it was just too known that some information was out there but not acted on. Of course, the official excuse is that they only had "hints" and there was "miscommunication" (pure bullsh*t). It is far from the first time in US history that this type of event has occured with very similiar circumstances & consequences. It's almost a full proof formula.

But no, I do not think that they placed demolition charges in the buildings. I would not put it past them but just do not think it's probable. Too hard to prove anyway, just look at how heated this debate got, each side completely unwilling to budge. And then patriotic feelings get into it and blah blah blah, conspiracy nuts, right wing crazies, left wing crazies, blah blah blah and so on. Which is why you do not need conspiracy theories anymore, it's just too easy to distract the masses.
I'll try to stay out of this thread.
 
i dont know why i even bother replying to your posts, that are shallow and full of hatred but i think i need to remind u the importance of the internet; if it wasn't for it u would never EVER have seen videos of 911 ever again. and i bet u wouldn't even have seen bdg 7 collapse, since it was shown on tv only a couple of times during the days following 911. and sorry but trying to downplay the evidence and saying it is all made up is fucking outrageous. prove us scores of witnesses testimonies [extremely relevant, since any court in the world would not downplay or refuse to hear what they got to say] is made up. and am talking about credible figure like firefighters, pilots, structural engineers and rescue workers. sorry but your statements just dont cut it: show us PROOF that the relevant material has been doctored or get bent for good. the heating are not proof of anything, what a superficial statement, the map is just another piece of information that add to the already massive database. bush did it? another pathetic attempt to discredit us, bush couldnt even tie his shoes for god sake: u keep showing us YOU are the uneducated and uninformed at every turn: u swallowed all the crap from the govt never acknowledging the massive inconsistencies with facts and evidence. for god sake the govt backtracked and was embarrassed countless times after was caught in lies and deception. what a stupid post u just made.
Quote from traderNik:

Indeed.

One thing I have learned here is just how much time these CT'ers spend compiling 'evidence'. In this sense, the internet is basically responsible for the legs this myth has, because of the ability for anyone to post doctored images or pseudo-scientific 'analisys'. This 'analisys' is gobbled up by the credulous.

I hate to mention this, but... the apparent lack of education evinced by the CTers here explains why pseudo-scientific writing can engender in them the belief that what they are reading must be the truth. To their ears, it sounds like science. They are unfortunately unable to subject these documents to rigorous scientific analysis, mostly because of their inability to handle the language. Pictures of squid, are, of course, much easier to understand. I saw some sort of heatmap image posted yesterday. To me, nothing more needs to be said after seeing that image posted as proof that the Bush family planned and executed 9/11.

It's not surprising, given what these folks have invested in their beliefs, that they are uneasy when the basic tenets of those beliefs are questioned.

Once again, this thread is just like the ID threads. The whole conversation comes to a grinding halt when the believers are asked for proof.
More...


proof?
what are u fucking kidding. this thread is saturated with evidence, u on the other hand wont ever be able to provide any shred of evidence for a motive, opportunity and actual proof it was those 14 arabs sent by obl. what was it, hatred for the american people? infact i challenge u to provide me with something tangible right now proving the original conspiracy theory brought forward by your govt. and since the evidence for a govt coverup is actually very weak in your mind, give me the details, present your case, don't talk like a wacko trying to discredit others ideas because of their stance, it is ludicrous and a childish tactic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top