9/11 Loose Change vs Pop. Mechanics

[Looger]

Originally Posted by photon

Again, source? Who used what equipment to determine the colour and temperature?

i've poured aluminum. looks like mercury. why is this such a mystery? if you put aluminum in a steel / iron basket and heat the basket, you will have a red spoon and a silver-coloured liquid. this is not rocket surgery.

Originally Posted by photon

Not that it matters, molten pools do not support demolition anyway.

so...

thermite is never used to slice 45 degree angles in support pillars to demolish buildings?

this is a new one.

[Looger]

what fascinates me is that there have been noises within the oval office and NIST that have given small lip service to the very idea of explosives, maybe testing the waters - maybe it'll turn out that al-quaeda brought down those buildings by controlled demolition, but the security breach involving marvin bush is just too big a scandal! <sarcasm off>

i quote the president:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

i guess we'll find out for sure soon...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

can't wait.

the plot sickens.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Oh look, it didn't collapse!!! Not even having every single floor completely burned away did the structure collapse. Oh, and look up top. That's the construction crane still standing. The crane, a steel structure with NO fireproofing at all, remianed in tact and standing after being subjected to an inferno that raged on for over a day.

From WTC Wiki: Wiki

What the twin towers may have lacked in architectural aestheticism, they made up for with engineering innovation. To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size. This method of construction also meant that the twin towers had the world's highest load-bearing walls.[citation needed]

In every example provided where buildings have been on fire and have not collapsed, not one has been presented with the same set of circumstances. How many have been hit by aircraft? How many buildings where constructed in the same manner as the WTC's?
Everyone knows that you do not put a hole through a load bearing wall. If you do, you compromise the structure's integrity. If you fly a plane into a building, and destroy 10+ levels of load bearing walls, with about 80+ floors of building intact above where the sturcutre has been comprimised, you are going to have a serious problem on your hands. The rest of building's structure has to make up for the loss of strength. If you had other elements into the mix, such as fire to further weaken the structure, who's to say it isn't going to come down on its own?

Seperating out each element and disecting it on it's own, is not the way to find the answer, which is what I see alot of people doing.

[photon]

Molten aluminum will glow when heated as well:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...e+Search&meta=

I didn't say thermate/ite was never used in building demolition, just that there's no conclusive evidence that it was used in this case.

Can you provide info that describes how thermate/ite is used when cutting steel support beams? I haven't been able to find one.



Notice the steel worker in the back ground.



From the same series, a column in the process of being cut.

You know the conspiracy theory that I personally would believe? That all these CT sites and stuff are created by the government so people spend their time talking about the amount of sulfer found and timelines of how a building collapsed, instead of talking about the changes they're making to laws that are REALLY scary...

[Looger]

Originally Posted by photon

Can you provide info that describes how thermate/ite is used when cutting steel support beams? I haven't been able to find one.

they're quite often pre-cut long before the charges are set off, typically with other kinds of cutting torches. my mistake. i shot off the hip there, and i apologize.

Originally Posted by photon

You know the conspiracy theory that I personally would believe? That all these CT sites and stuff are created by the government so people spend their time talking about the amount of sulfer found and timelines of how a building collapsed, instead of talking about the changes they're making to laws that are REALLY scary...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...orturebill.htm

alex jones has been practically (or not...) frothing at the mouth since this legislation moved through the houses and aside from a few legal experts in some papers like the LA times (cited in the above link), the foley case has DOMINATED washington news. i'd estimate he's talked exclusively aboot this and other recent legislation maybe, 5+ hours on the radio since. maybe more. i've missed a few days.

http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-2.htm

as to the more elaborate conspiracy - seen the recent southpark i guess, eh?

[FurnaceFace]

Looger, Lanny, et al, I'm trying to understand exactly what you think happened. Is your argument in essence:

The US government, needing to have a reason to wipe out the governments of Middle East contries it didn't see eye to eye with, came up with a plan for a large terrorist attack to galvanize the US and allied countries thus allowing them to do what they wanted?

The US government hooked up with Osama to get him to hand over some of his supporters so they could fly the planes or make it appear they flew the planes into the buildings. They got him to pose with some of these guys and got him to make a few tapes supporting the event...or perhaps they didn't use him at all they just found some guys who were in videos with Osama, and found a bunch of unreleased Osama videos and dubbed his voice so he could say a bunch of stuff they wanted the public to consume. (oddly enough they never had him outright say "I did it" on day one.)

Meanwhile, they got in touch with the new owner of the buildings letting them know about the plot and urging them to take out insurance on it. The gov also did some shorting of airline stocks for the heck of it, and a number of other small things like standing down some of the military and moving key personnel out of the affected areas.

Before this, then went in under the guise of construction crews and planted explosives all over the towers so that after the planes hit they could drop them. For kicks they added in WTC7 (there's some actual reason for knocking that building out too, I just forget).

They also thought, hell, we've gone this far, let's make it really good and smack up some accountants over at the Pentagon. They make it look like one of the domestic flights hit the building, but they used a missle or another plane. They disposed of this domestic flight somehow without anyone noticing it on radar or seeing it land anywhere.

What of the mess in Pennsylvania? Was it just part of the plot gone bad? It was intended to hit the Capital Building to take out some of those darn Democrats? Or, better yet, the "terrorists" supplied by Osama were supposed to fail and there was a plant or two among the passengers who were to drum up support for an overthrow and then force a crash hence adding an additional heroic element beyond the expendable fire and police personnel at the WTC?

I'm just wanting to understand what the truth actually is.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Looger, Lanny, et al, I'm trying to understand exactly what you think happened. Is your argument in essence:

for starters, i don't claim to have all the answers. clearly there are some GAPING holes in the goverment story, i'll do what i can to answer your questions as to what i believe - i can only speak for myself.

i'm making some wild claims here - can't deny that!

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

The US government, needing to have a reason to wipe out the governments of Middle East contries it didn't see eye to eye with, came up with a plan for a large terrorist attack to galvanize the US and allied countries thus allowing them to do what they wanted?

a small, criminal element of the government, tied to wall street through the likes of cheney and buzzy kronguard, needs to seize resources and perhaps more importantly airdrop in banks / financial institutions ensuring further economic slavery for more people through lending unpayable (including america's own) debt and further staving off the total collapse of their reserve system. also clearly the straussians among them NEED a clash of civilizations, and have set out to make it a reality. interestingly a lot of the 'old money' are calling for a halt to this insanity, the bilderberg meeting in ottawa this year featured shouting matches between the two major factions.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

The US government hooked up with Osama to get him to hand over some of his supporters so they could fly the planes or make it appear they flew the planes into the buildings. They got him to pose with some of these guys and got him to make a few tapes supporting the event...or perhaps they didn't use him at all they just found some guys who were in videos with Osama, and found a bunch of unreleased Osama videos and dubbed his voice so he could say a bunch of stuff they wanted the public to consume. (oddly enough they never had him outright say "I did it" on day one.)

osama bin laden has been provably working for western intelligence from 1979 well into the 1990s, usually under the name 'tim osman'. and the guys he poses with, have been reported at US bases like the defence language school in pensacola, also training at US installations in florida. not all 19, but many of them.

so if osama AND many hijackers have been provably working for western intelligence in the past, why would videos be evidence to the contrary?

also MI6 hired al-quaeda to murder quaddafi (failed attempt) and were outed by a couple of whistleblowers, in a book 'spies lies and whistleblowers'.

add to this the tremendous MOUNTAIN of evidence linking al-quaeda to the bosnia conflict, sent in to stir things up with western money.

gen. mahmoud, head of the ISI, according to many sources wired mohommad atta $100,000.

the ISI has been clearly idenified by indian intelligence as behind the mumbai 7/11 bombing.

point of fact theres no way to know where the ISI ends and al-quaeda starts, google seymour hersch's 'airlift of evil' and ask yourself why theres hundreds of goat herders at gitmo and the cream of the taliban and al-quaeda were airlifted by pakistan at the beginning of the western invasion.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Meanwhile, they got in touch with the new owner of the buildings letting them know about the plot and urging them to take out insurance on it. The gov also did some shorting of airline stocks for the heck of it, and a number of other small things like standing down some of the military and moving key personnel out of the affected areas.

silverstein has been moving in shadowy circles for years, doubtless some of the same establishment circles that plan these kinds of war sparks. things like the insider trading are just perimeter guys that catch wind of this or that. things like the gold in the basements, the last minute exchanges, etc. are just parts of the 'warehouse job' that sometimes gets a little too big.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Before this, then went in under the guise of construction crews and planted explosives all over the towers so that after the planes hit they could drop them. For kicks they added in WTC7 (there's some actual reason for knocking that building out too, I just forget).

warehouse job - always LOTS of reasons. ENRON investigation at the SEC in WTC7, plus all the planning/coordination for the whole job.

forbes magazine has reported some of the maintenance oddities. also forbes carries the admission that the mounties delivered the fertilizer to our 'terrorists'.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

They also thought, hell, we've gone this far, let's make it really good and smack up some accountants over at the Pentagon. They make it look like one of the domestic flights hit the building, but they used a missle or another plane. They disposed of this domestic flight somehow without anyone noticing it on radar or seeing it land anywhere.

as the issue came out on september 10th, something tells me this is some sloppy last-minute addition, and that 93 was bound for WTC7.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

What of the mess in Pennsylvania? Was it just part of the plot gone bad? It was intended to hit the Capital Building to take out some of those darn Democrats? Or, better yet, the "terrorists" supplied by Osama were supposed to fail and there was a plant or two among the passengers who were to drum up support for an overthrow and then force a crash hence adding an additional heroic element beyond the expendable fire and police personnel at the WTC?

cheney had a speed limit of 450 mph and a shootdown order was required by the president. exercises had fake blips all over the place, and some fighters were circling in the atlantic waiting for the russians (seriously). i was watching the news and there were 29 reported hijackings at one point! 15+ exercises slowly have leaked through official sources and places like richard clarke's book. NRO exercises, CIA, NORAD, geez the norad tapes released by vanity fair has lines like 'is this real world or exercise?' and 'hey everone just left the room', 'should we scramble', 'uh um maybe...'

the planes were flown by remote, likely 'global hawk' or something, in fact many believe that a fair percentage of 757's and 767's can simply be instantly controlled this way. i haven't really checked into that.

something tells me that somehow, some way, one fighter got through to a target despite all the forces working against that.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I'm just wanting to understand what the truth actually is.

read the literature, read the debunkers, michael shermer of skeptic.com is probably the best place to start there, i am a huge fan of him (despite the fact that i disagree with him on this one). he's got a column in scientific american every issue and he raises the right concerns. not just on 9/11 either.

st911.org has replies to the debunkers.

most of all, stay away from loose change and popular mechanics.

[White Doors]

Ok, well one point to make, the mounties delivered 'fake' fertilizer to our terrorists in order to nab them. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory again?

[White Doors]

The President of Afghanistan was in the Mujahadeen that was helped by the US too. What is ther point? I';m glad the US helped Afghanistan without it making it another Vietnam. smart if you ask me.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ok, well one point to make, the mounties delivered 'fake' fertilizer to our terrorists in order to nab them. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory again?

just a small plug for forbes magazine, lots of intersting crap ends up in there.

if you haven't yet figured out that the vast majority of the recent 'terror busts' are total loads, and are led by western intelligence from the start, then there's not much i can do to help you. i'm not denying the criminal intent of the 70-80 IQ low grade subjects that are recruited through websites or off the streets or whatever - but they are led from the start, the warehouses are rented with government money, and the whole thing is a production. the leaders from DAY ONE are government operatives.

an FBI agent arresting the 'chicago 17' or whatever they were called in florida, mentioned that he doubted that any of them knew where chicago was.

interesting to note that silvertein properties bought the sears tower.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The President of Afghanistan was in the Mujahadeen that was helped by the US too. What is ther point? I';m glad the US helped Afghanistan without it making it another Vietnam. smart if you ask me.

...not sure where you're coming from here...

trying to start another false debate?

you should get some help.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

it sure was.

'it was the jews' - yep, i hear THAT all the time in the 9/11 truth movement...

anyone believing that, well...

interesting that the site "911truth.org" was onscreen as much as it was. why not a weaker site?

The shot at jews had nothing to do with you all, it is simply an ongoing element of the show involving the two charachters.

"It was a bunch of angry muslims. Are you ****ing ######ed?"

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The shot at jews had nothing to do with you all, it is simply an ongoing element of the show involving the two charachters.

"It was a bunch of angry muslims. Are you ****ing ######ed?"

yeah... the kyle / cartman thing... couldn't help but hear some implications though, considering how many 9/11 truthers are accused of anti-semitism.

some anti-semites use 9/11 as a way to 'blame the jews', highlited quite succintly in a recent interview on republic broadcasting on the weekend, kevin barrett hosting john kaminski. i had thought it was a bad idea to have kaminski on but i guess it's important to expose these losers whenever possible, to gain a little distance.

they use the zionist connections of neo-cons to implicate them in ZOG plots, but what's real interesting is that if you track the careers of this particular branch of the neo-cons (the dual citizens like zakheim) a lot of them spent time traveling between israel to the soviet union. i'd consider that more important, as it related to their political ideologies, than where they were born. the anti-semites, like always, are reaching. anti-semites, like always, have backers that may surprise.

what they forget is that historically, zionism has been used by other interests, like british colonial, for other purposes that definitely don't involve the safety and security of the jewish people.

paradoxically, using the recent lebanon conflict, i think the reverse of the general perception among these twits is true - neo-con influence was instrumental in trying to open up a wider war. 'curtain raiser' was how these straussian sickos referred to the lebanon/israel conflict in their ugly literature, part of their sick agenda to engage syria and iran. people have to realize that the cabal in power is transnational, and owes allegiance not to one small country in the middle east, but to corporate interests and shadowy secret team networks. yes, some of them are jews. some of them are WASPs. some of them are brits, etc.

kaminski will never get it. as he IS one of the first people with a voice on the internet that started screaming 'inside job' not long after the attacks on 9/11, then unfortunately he'll be associated by mainstream media with 9/11 truthers that don't see zionist agendas in every closet.

oct 14th interview:

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0610/2...at_Fetzer1.mp3

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer/0610/2...at_Fetzer2.mp3

[FurnaceFace]

I really said the truth line tongue in cheek, I have no real desire to read up on anything further than I have. It seems like everything above is wrapped in a lot of buzzwords and cloak and dagger stuff. I was really just after what your position on this ummm "thing" is. Thanks for laying it out because I'm never sure what parts of the overall theory people believe.

Personally I have a hard time swallowing everything you said. Lots of that seems as tough for me to believe as it does for you to believe in a straight terrorist attack.

So...if the flights were just RC planes what happened to the crew and the people on board and the talk back and forth from the pilots to the towers? All more fake stuff?

You'll also probably know, did they find records of passengers at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania? Or were those just a plant... Oh and if they were flown by remote control then how do you explain the cell calls from 93 to their families making it clear there were terrorists on board?

I have far too many questions about this theory Mulder.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I really said the truth line tongue in cheek, I have no real desire to read up on anything further than I have.

fair enough.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Personally I have a hard time swallowing everything you said. Lots of that seems as tough for me to believe as it does for you to believe in a straight terrorist attack.

once you start reading up on past terror, you realize that there have been very few attacks in western countries that didn't involve security establishments at some level, infiltrated, controlled, watched.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

So...if the flights were just RC planes what happened to the crew and the people on board and the talk back and forth from the pilots to the towers? All more fake stuff?

who knows - that can be discussed ad nauseum. cell calls in the age of computerization are easy to fake real-time, and the 'hello mom - it's mark bingam' call where he asks her if she believes him FOUR times is a trite suspicious. the airphone calls where stewardesses complain of gas and are coughing, probably genuine.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

You'll also probably know, did they find records of passengers at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania? Or were those just a plant... Oh and if there were flown by remote control then how do you explain the cell calls from 93 to their families making it clear there were hostages on board?

perimeter issue, and debunkers always ask the critics of the government story to explain EVERY stupid little detail while they give a free pass to the gigantic gaping chasms in the 9/11 commission report.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I have far too many questions about this theory Mulder.

not sure what to say to this, except as an interesting 'x-files' reference the pilot for the BAD spinoff 'lone gunmen' featured a nearly identical scenario, planes taken over remotely with passengers flying into the WTC to ignite a war in the middle east.

and NO, i don't think it was 'part of the conspiracy', just a tidbit that came to mind when you mentioned mulder.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Looger, Lanny, et al, I'm trying to understand exactly what you think happened. Is your argument in essence:...

I don't know how to answer this. Part of me wants to tell you to go **** yourself because of the condesending way in which you posed your question. The other half of me wants to explain so you'll better understand the position I have (I'm not sure about Loogers). But I think it doesn't matter what I post as you have already made up your mind. You have swallowed the "official story", no matter how full of holes it is and the incredible number of coincidences that took place prior to, during and after the attacks. You said it yourself, you don't care to read anything more on the incident, so it doesn't matter what is said. You have closed your mind to the probablility that the government did indeed play role in the events unfolding the way they did. So why waste the keystrokes? If your serious, you can pose the question in a more polite manner. If not, go **** yourself for being a close-minded condesending jerk about a subject you readily admit to being uneducated about. There, I think I covered all bases there.

[Azure]

Oh the irony...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I really said the truth line tongue in cheek, I have no real desire to read up on anything further than I have.

Not exactly an open minded attitude for someone seeking to elicit more info from Looger and Lanny on the topic.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Not exactly an open minded attitude for someone seeking to elicit more info from Looger and Lanny on the topic.

hey, i'll take it as an opportunity.

quite often it revives threads and presents data to other people that actually meaningfully post.

what really works is when one of these losers takes a 9/11 shot at me in another thread. that's a lot of fun.

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Not exactly an open minded attitude for someone seeking to elicit more info from Looger and Lanny on the topic.

True...and it was poorly worded, sorry.

I guess what I'm interested in, truly interested in, is I've heard and read a number of various theories/thoughts/hypothesis and I'm trying to cut through all the noise and understand what parts of this the theorists on this board believe. There are perhaps parts of this discussion which I could perhaps buy, I'm not as closed minded as I came across or as "poisoned" by the official story as I could be. I'm interested in hearing the ideas and can then decide based on all of that ok?

For example, I can buy part of the JFK assassination theories as I have a hard time believing the lone gunman theory (more x-files references!)

Unfortunately I haven't heard much of the 911 theories I can believe in. My biggest "block" I guess is I have a hard time getting past the premise the US government would sacrifice an undetermined number of civilians for this event and sacrifice untold economic and political turmoil. The US is much weaker after this event than before. The only thing I do agree with is the US did want to do something in the Middle East and did invent/trump up the whole WMD angle to get into Iraq. I think that has blown up in their face to some degree.

I think a government follower or "close-minded condesending jerk" wouldn't have a couple of those opinions. But then what do I know, perhaps I should just go **** myself.