The Scientific evidence is in: 9/11 was an inside job

[peter12]

No no it was the Priory of Sion or whatever that group was from the Da Vinci Code. Or maybe the Free Masons!

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

^^good post photon---and it points to one of the major problems with this conspiracy theory. If the Bushies planned it all along, why is it such a cluster%$^&?!?

it's such a cluster-**** because it was a big operation with many involved.

cheney had a speed limit set on interceptions, i think it was 350 mph or something like that. plus the command structure stood down.

maybe flight 93 was going to hit congress, decapitate the capital, and give the clear light for martial law.

maybe it was shot down, its wreckage is strewn over 8 square miles.

if so it would have been a miracle, the air force was hobbled at every turn.

they overplayed their hand, they stretched too far, and they ****ed up.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Looger

how and why did building seven come down, larry silverstein is on tape saying they made a decision to 'pull' the building. it came down with a kink in the centre, just like controlled demolitions.

Umm, they imploded it because the building was deemed unsafe. And rather than risk killing a bunch of other people, they brought it down.

Originally Posted by Looger

when the towers were coming down you can see the 'squibs' - explosions thirty floors below the collapse.

Do you think maybe millions of tonnes of stuff crashing down might be able to cause the same effect? Just maybe? If you direct downward pressure on a building structure, whats going to happen to the outter most sections? They are going to crumble with explosive force, that looks like a 'squib'. Think that may have something to do with it?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Looger

it's such a cluster-**** because it was a big operation with many involved.

cheney had a speed limit set on interceptions, i think it was 350 mph or something like that. plus the command structure stood down.

maybe flight 93 was going to hit congress, decapitate the capital, and give the clear light for martial law.

maybe it was shot down, its wreckage is strewn over 8 square miles.

if so it would have been a miracle, the air force was hobbled at every turn.

they overplayed their hand, they stretched too far, and they ****ed up.

Fine--so their success at this particular aspect of the operation was limited. But if their agenda was to invade Iraq all along (and if anything's clear it's that Wolfowitz and the neo-cons ALWAYS had Iraq on their agendas) then why wouldn't they fabricate some rational link to Iraq immediately. That would have been a smart thing to do, and no-one would have questioned the need for the Iraq war, probably not even now. Instead they linked the attacks to Saudi Arabia, an ally, and Afghanistan, which was from the neo-cons perspective at best a distraction. See my problem? Unless these guys are actually, well--very stupid--the conspiracy doesn't make sense: it doesn't achieve what we know to be their goals. And if they are that stupid, there's no way they were smart enough to pull it off.

[ken0042]

Regarding the USAF, I recall hearing on that day that a fighter jet did actually have a radar lock on the 2nd plane to hit the towers, but was either unwilling to destroy it over a populated area like Manhatten, or was waiting for orders to fire. (Because shooting down a passenger plan isn't a normal part of the Air Force's duty.)

I know there were many inacurate news reports that day, but does this ring a bell with anybody else?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So you take 10 stories worth of air filled with concrete dust and compress it. What happens? Hey, the windows blow out! Neat.

...

Last 911 conspiracy thread we had here had a pdf where a guy went through scene by scene and showed that there were better explanations for most things. It then becomes a "zebras or horses" type of question.

...

What is wrong with approaching this with an open mind. If the arguement is that compelling, let me see it for myself.

there is clear video evidence of thirty floors of explosions in the center of one of the towers, with the corner structure intact - as in the actual collapse is thirty floors up, but the inner structure support is getting blown out the building.

what i am saying here has to do with a critique of a video made by some guys, i do not know. they're on the same side of the argument but i don't agree with everything they have in their 'loose change' videos. met those guys by the way.

the most compelling evidence is william rodriguez, last civilian pulled from the rubble. he's a 9/11 hero, went back in - he was the head janitor and had the master key, took the firemen up the stairs to rescue people.

he was toured around by the media and the administration, plenty of pics of him with dubya, problem is he wouldn't shut up aboot the explosion in the basement before the plane hit. so he disappeared from the media and administration press quickly.

he was in the basement when an explosive went off down there, to weaken the main supports.

he's on tour all over the world.

the mainstream media across the globe is starting to give these guys airtime, just not here in north america.

if you want to see it give me a time and a place.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Looger

Bring_Back_Shantz,

the links are above with the interviews and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and their backups.

I'm not going to PM you. You can go ahead and make that step.

You said if anyone wants hard proof that you'd send it to them.
So please send it to me.
I want hard proof.
They can say whatever they want untill they're blue in the face but untill I see documented proof from more than one source I'm not gonna belive them.

I haven't watched the videos (other than very short snipits, such as the "molten steel" I'll admit) but you have. Do they show documents that show that they have eliminated the possibilites that I have brought up. Possibilites that are probalby much more likely than theirs? I'll watch the whole damn thing if you can tell me that they show these documents, and don't just say stuff like "We found themite" and "We have video of molten steel".

What step am I supposed to take? Is this a quetion of faith? I've chosen the rational approach where I consider all options. I'm guessing the guys in these videos had a foregone conclusion, and found tidbits of information to support thier ideas, no matter how much other evidence or how many much more likey secenarios they had to ignore.

Seriously, do they show this documention in the film? If so I'll watch it.
If it doens't then send me a copy. And if you don't have them then don't claim to be able to give me hard evidence.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Umm, they imploded it because the building was deemed unsafe. And rather than risk killing a bunch of other people, they brought it down.


Do you think maybe millions of tonnes of stuff crashing down might be able to cause the same effect? Just maybe? If you direct downward pressure on a building structure, whats going to happen to the outter most sections? They are going to crumble with explosive force, that looks like a 'squib'. Think that may have something to do with it?

fine. they brought it down.

takes weeks to do. check it out.

as for the downward force, it's possible. but what aboot the first tower to go down? hit on one side, starts to list one side, but still goes STRAIGHT DOWN. if the structure had been weakened by the fire / impact on one side, it would have toppled to that side. ever play jenga?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fine--so their success at this particular aspect of the operation was limited. But if their agenda was to invade Iraq all along (and if anything's clear it's that Wolfowitz and the neo-cons ALWAYS had Iraq on their agendas) then why wouldn't they fabricate some rational link to Iraq immediately. That would have been a smart thing to do, and no-one would have questioned the need for the Iraq war, probably not even now. Instead they linked the attacks to Saudi Arabia, an ally, and Afghanistan, which was from the neo-cons perspective at best a distraction. See my problem? Unless these guys are actually, well--very stupid--the conspiracy doesn't make sense: it doesn't achieve what we know to be their goals. And if they are that stupid, there's no way they were smart enough to pull it off.

we can debate intentions and falsehoods all day. but i'm here to talk aboot evidence.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Looger

fine. they brought it down.

takes weeks to do. check it out.

as for the downward force, it's possible. but what aboot the first tower to go down? hit on one side, starts to list one side, but still goes STRAIGHT DOWN. if the structure had been weakened by the fire / impact on one side, it would have toppled to that side. ever play jenga?

Because a tower of jenga blocks is structurally the same as a skyscraper.
I'm a political science student and even I can tell there is something wrong with the physics of that.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

You said if anyone wants hard proof that you'd send it to them.
So please send it to me.
I want hard proof.
They can say whatever they want untill they're blue in the face but untill I see documented proof from more than one source I'm not gonna belive them.

I haven't watched the videos (other than very short snipits, such as the "molten steel" I'll admit) but you have. Do they show documents that show that they have eliminated the possibilites that I have brought up. Possibilites that are probalby much more likely than theirs? I'll watch the whole damn thing if you can tell me that they show these documents, and don't just say stuff like "We found themite" and "We have video of molten steel".

What step am I supposed to take? Is this a quetion of faith? I've chosen the rational approach where I consider all options. I'm guessing the guys in these videos had a foregone conclusion, and found tidbits of information to support thier ideas, no matter how much other evidence or how many much more likey secenarios they had to ignore.

Seriously, do they show this documention in the film? If so I'll watch it.
If it doens't then send me a copy. And if you don't have them then don't claim to be able to give me hard evidence.

send me a pm with your e-mail, and when i make copies i'll send one to you. i don't have a dvd burner but sometime this weekend i'll make some copies of the videos involved.

if you want to meet at schanks or something with a few people i'll bring my laptop and some videos to show people, does schanks have power outlets?

[Bill Bumface]

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH You paid money for this??? AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH

I think if I was the guy running the conference you went to I'd laugh myself to sleep everynight at how I actually managed to make money with something so ridiculous.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Looger

fine. they brought it down.

takes weeks to do. check it out.

as for the downward force, it's possible. but what aboot the first tower to go down? hit on one side, starts to list one side, but still goes STRAIGHT DOWN. if the structure had been weakened by the fire / impact on one side, it would have toppled to that side. ever play jenga?

The first tower was about 15-20 floors below the top of a 160+ floor building. That is not enough force to cause the building to tople over.

Using Jenga as an example of how the WTC "should" have toppled is crazy. The WTC was built to stand up to hurricane force winds, and impact from the largest plane at the time (a DC-10 I beleive). Jenga is a bunch of loose blocks that you stack together. And if you ever watched any of the shows on TLC or Discoverty about how they built the WTC you know that the load carrying sections of the building was in the outter wall, not up the middle like every other building. And as you watch the WTC collapse, you do see sections of the outter wall fall away, but the majority of the building collapses in wards or straight down. That is becuase there is only an elevator shaft, and stairs in the middle. It is essentially an empty core. Once once section goes, it would pull in all the other sections, falling in on itself.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Looger

as for the downward force, it's possible. but what aboot the first tower to go down? hit on one side, starts to list one side, but still goes STRAIGHT DOWN. if the structure had been weakened by the fire / impact on one side, it would have toppled to that side. ever play jenga?

I saw a show on TLC or Discovery that explained that. A lot of it has to do with the scale. When they engineer a building, part of what has to be kept in mind is that we have a common mis-conception as lay people as to how gravity works. We think of gravity as stuff falling, but in reality it is a continous force. In a building the top is always trying to push its way down, and that energy is stored as potential energy. There might be a few tons of lateral force at work, but at the end of the day there is a lot more force being exerted downward. And it's that downward force that wins out in the topple vs colapse battle.

Now, I'm (obviously) no physicist, so I may not be explaining it as well as they did on the show, but the general point is there.

The reason a model or a jenga game topples over is the lack of mass. Look at other things that have colapsed on their own; like on some of those "World's Wildest Videos" where a stage or bridge colapses. The stage sways, but then it falls straight down. Another classic example is (I think) the Tacoma Narrows bridge. You see the video of the bridge swaying with a circa 1947 sedan on the bridge. It's moving all over the place, but when it goes, it goes straight down.

[Looger]

each building had 47 core columns.

whenever one of the underwriters, or a high-ranking architect, has disputed the official story they have been fired.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by arsenal

The first tower was about 15-20 floors below the top of a 160+ floor building. That is not enough force to cause the building to tople over.

the first tower hit was the second to come down.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Looger

the first tower hit was the second to come down.

Yah thanks, I know.
By topple over, I was saying fall over side-ways like your flawed jenga comparison. But thanks for playing.

[Looger]

if there's no structure in the centre of the building, then it would collapse on the side that got hit and burned. that plane went into the corner.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Yeah Looger,
There's no way a buildig of that size would ever topple over on it's side. It's called inertia.
For the building to topple over on it's side there has to be some sort of lateral force to push it over. Wher is that force comming from? Even if a couple floors of colums give out on one side, the scale and weight of the building mean that there's pretty much no way for the building to go but straing down. It's basic physics man.
But again the theorists ignore this but use it for their own purposes.

In controlled demolitions the buildings fall straigt down and this one fell straingt down so it must have been a controlled demolition.

Me thinks these guys need a lesson on the philosophical definition of Necessary vs Sufficient.

[Frank the Tank]

Looger, you've gone off the deep end. Why the need for a conspiracy? Is it too much for you to fathom that there is that much hate in the world? Take it for what it is, an act of terrorism.

And why do you spell about, aboot?