Richard Gage - 9/11 -new info from Fox News KMPH

[NM_Shooter]

Exactly, Don.  

Even when new material is presented, those who do not want to believe our government is that evil will not look.

Thanks for providing us a perfect example of why this coverup continues to succeed so well.  

Sigh......

I'm looking for a crucible right now.

[MountainDon]

Glenn, I never said I never looked. I simply have not seen anything new (anywhere) that was in any way convincing.

There are conspiracy theories I do believe in; Watergate is one, Iran-Contra another. However, there are far more CT's that I find laughable.

Watergate and Iran-Contra were criminal conspiracies that were proven. CT's about events like 9/11, the moon landings, HIV and blacks, etc. have no proof. A criminal conspiracy has little or nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. I believe conspiracy theorists are seeking to prove something they want to believe; that they have a psychological need to believe. You may say that is true of people who do not believe. Fine; both views are opinions and can not be proven. Instead of scientifically following a stream of facts to a rational conclusion conspiracy theorists collect bits and pieces and weave them into "whole cloth*". The fact that their interpretation of events, evidence, and testimony leads to more and more dubious explanations for the data, and impossible situations is unimportant.


There's a lot of interesting reading out there on the psychology of conspiracy theories.

Just to be perfectly clear..."whole cloth"*  something that is wholly fabricated. The implication seems to be that a thing made from whole cloth has no previous history or associations, that it is created from a blank sheet in the same way that false information is invented.

[Sassy]

Don, I actually set out to prove the theories wrong - I did not want to believe them, they went against everything I had ever known or believed about my country... "Instead of scientifically following a stream of facts to a rational conclusion conspiracy theorists collect bits and pieces and weave them into "whole cloth*", but the PROOF of controlled demolition is overwhelming, if all you look at is the physics of what happened.  Just the fact that 2 buildings fell in less than 10 seconds without ANY structural steel standing except the little bit at ground level that we could see pictures of.  Even Popular Mechanics & the documentary that was shown on TV showed the "pancake effect" with the center core still standing 

If someone can believe that a building can be demolished, all the cement turned into massive dust particles, in less than 10 seconds from an airplane hitting it at the top; or building 7, one of the furthest buildings from the twin towers, 47 stories, falling in less than 7 seconds & NO PLANE HIT IT, only isolated fires that were just about under control per voice recording of the firemen, if you can believe these fairy tales or uh, conspiracy theories, you'll believe anything! 

Peace 

[NM_Shooter]

Popular Mechanics?  You mean this Popular Mechanics?  http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Read that page.  You ignored the earlier link.  Really... read that page.

NIST indicates that temps from atomized fuel and other flammables in the resulting blast furnace environment (updrafts in shafts) caused temps to 1000C.

Hey wait... Windy says Aluminum does not glow, Glenn says it does.  Should I suspend my search for a crucible?

CDI folks say that 30 tons of thermite would have been required.  They found trace amounts from the cleanup.  (They also use thermite in mechanical / electrical bonding). 

Proof?  You still have none.  ZERO EVIDENCE.

[MountainDon]

There's an interesting read at the end of the below link. It's a longish one but well worth it for it's scientific look at the phenomenon of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses.

It's from a professional journal, the Journal of Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (JOM). The article is authored by Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The Cliff's Notes version would read something like this...

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

WTC 1&2 were unique building in their design and construction. It is/was considered a lightweight structure. The building was an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.

The impact of the airliner was not enough to knock down the structures. However, the impacts did cause some structural damage.

The fires were obviously fuel rich (dense black smoke) and therefore not intense enough to melt the steel. The fire was widespread. The temperatures reached may have been only up to the 750 - 800 degree C range.

Structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.

The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere. Uneven heating causes stresses and distortions in steel.

Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures.

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed.

The building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.


Somehow I find more substance in that one article than in a dozen or more pro-conspiracy websites and books I have read. Maybe that's just me.

There are also references to source material at the article's end. Read. Enjoy.

[Sassy]

LESS THAN 10 SECONDS???!!!    I don't care how weakened the steel was, the buildings would not collapse perfectly on itself in less than 10 seconds!!!  And Building 7 would not have collapsed on itself in less than 7 seconds!!!

I can see them falling over on their sides, large chunks of cement & other materials falling all over, but all the cement was practically vaporized!  For crying out loud, there were people standing in the opening of one of the towers waving clothing, trying to flag people right before the tower fell, there were firemen all over the building evacuating people - obviously it wasn't too hot for them...    

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698  This article from 1993 after the 1st attack...

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

By Eric Nalder

Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3917901/The-Twin-Towers-Were-OverEngineered
Here's an actual video of them building the WTC  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw

BTW, I've read the Popular Mechanics article & watched the documentary that was on TV showing the pancake effect...  they are still ignoring the fact that the buildings fell in less the 7 seconds - no plane hit it & the other 2 fell in less than 10 seconds - you'd really have to suspend all laws of physics & engineering, not to mention common sense...  no other buildings in history have ever fallen in 7 or 10 seconds, no matter how long they burned & how weakened the steel became... 

So who is suspending reality & weaving the "whole cloth"   

[MountainDon]

Sassy, let's throw in the towel, the whole cloth so to speak, and get on with other things where there's a snowballs chance in hell of something being resolved in a way we can both understand or agree on. Discussion on 9/11 is fruitless. It would seem you will never change your mind and unless some science comes along to change my thoughts, I guess I'm stuck with what I believe. Let me worry about that myself. If anyone doesn't like it, fine with me.


As for your article about the WTC being designed to withstand the impact of a 707, check up on the differences in size and weight between the 707 and the planes that hit the towers. If you do check you will also discover the 707 carried way less fuel that the 9/11 planes; I don't remember the figures and since I already got into that a year or more ago, and it didn't seem to make an impression then, why should I bother again? I'll just state that the planners figured if there was an aircraft impact it would be because a plane was lost in fog or clouds while trying to land at the end of a flight, not a plane that still had a long flight ahead of it and thusly loaded with much fuel. And of course, enough explosives, properly placed, could bring down anything. Show me the proof, not theory or conjecture or slight of hand.


A parting note: so what if a lady was waving, standing at the exterior wall of one of the towers? (That's not meant in a hard hearted way... I only have the utmost empathy for her plight. She surely realized she was doomed, that there was no real hope of rescue. She tugs at my heart. But her presence there has little to do with understanding that the building was an inferno in the area where the airliner impacted.) So what if there were firemen all over the building evacuating people? Temperatures would vary considerably at that outside ledge or on the floors below, some distance from the actual inferno. There were hundreds of firefighters in various parts of the building. Ditto for the people who had gone to work that day. Few of them burst into flame from the heat because few were in the center of the inferno. I can measure 600+ degrees F in the firebox of my wood stove and yet stand quite comfortably two feet away. The principles the same; it's simply a matter of scale.


I'm heading for the mountains in the morning. No internet and I don't mind at all for the most part. I can't wait to hear the bull elk bellowing in the evening, watching them or the deer at the salt lick in the morning. I have some stairs to build and some bullets to practice killing paper with. Life is good.

[Windpower]

Here you go Don

you do the math



707
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707



757

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757


very comparable  in weight and speed and fuel capacity

but

the 707 used vastly less efficient P&W JT -3(x)series verses the PW 2000 series turbo fans jets btw == more fuel on board for the 707

and a faster cruise as well  for the 707     

I know several ex707 captains btw -- they really liked the 707 -- fast and a good flying airframe

This means that a 707 crash would be overall more damaging to the towers than a 757







must be a "conspiracy theory"

[IronRanger]

NM_Shooter,

I'm going to assume you believe in "God". 

Break from the herd.

Like I've done. 

There's nothing worse than an anti-conspiracy theorist screaming from the mountaintops about evidence, without any.

There's no evidence of "God".  None.

______________________________ 

Rant, just a lil bit...

I stand, firmly, in the belief that our government and the banking/corporate interests who own them, will continue to act against its citizens. 

The Constitution says "NO!" to a central bank, corporate "personhood" (and even their right to exist without public support). 

______________________________

Anyways, I've got a paper to write and too little time to argue. 

As far as what I posted, I hope to get flamed.  Well, hell, that'd be too gay.  I hope to get roasted.  Well, hell, that'd be too celebratory.  Well, how about I get put on a spit.  Well, hell...

I'll stop there.

[glenn kangiser]

Thanks for the comments, IronRanger.  We try to keep responses respectful at least without flames even though some feel strongly.  I just don't understand blind support of the politicians when it should be blind support of our country that our forefathers died for.

The criminals stealing our country -- daily stealing more of our freedoms, should be disagreed with and removed from leadership.

Now , in July they are bringing foreign troops onto our soil - for FEMA maneuvers - by our Dual citizen FEMA leader.

Reason - hmm

Likely because in the case of martial law being declared soon they want the citizens to be prepared for foreign troops to be roaming around to disarm them.  Likely they figure they cannot count on US troops to disarm citizens - their relatives etc.

http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2009/06/femawebpagemartiallawforeigntroops.html

If you don't believe that -

http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/nle09.shtm

[IronRanger]

I posted after a heated argument with some family members last night...politics, religion and 9/11.  

My point was that people believe what they believe, often times without proof.  What irks me is people labeling others while doing the same.  The difference is that it's popular opinion.  

I tend to defend "conspiracy theorists" because I see religion as a grand conspiracy to control the populace. Those in power find religion useful.  

That being said, do I believe 9/11 was an inside job?  They were looking for "another Pearl Harbor".  That's fact.  In the end, they got their "Patriot" Act and that's enough info for me.






 

[ScottA]

My own mother has now decided that this government has gone renegade. She's never been one to question the government before until now. What turned her around was this business of declaring pro-lifers possible terrorists. She is a pro life Catholic and has written many letters over the years. Now she finds out that after being a good citizen all these years her government considers her a terrorist. I never thought I'd see the day she would agree with me on this.

[NM_Shooter]

I posted after a heated argument with some family members last night...politics, religion and 9/11.  

My point was that people believe what they believe, often times without proof.  What irks me is people labeling others while doing the same.  The difference is that it's popular opinion.  

I tend to defend "conspiracy theorists" because I see religion as a grand conspiracy to control the populace. Those in power find religion useful.  

That being said, do I believe 9/11 was an inside job?  They were looking for "another Pearl Harbor".  That's fact.  In the end, they got their "Patriot" Act and that's enough info for me.
 

Wow.. this thread took a sharp turn!

Do I believe in God?  I have faith in God.  I know... semantics.  But here is why....because no one can either prove or disprove existence of a Divine Creator.  The thing that makes me scratch my head is this weird life-spark thing.  We've yet to be able to create it ourselves from nothing.  We can share it, but not create it.

So here is the deal...I would be equally annoyed if someone advocated government funded research to either prove or refute the existence of God.

BTW, I think that hard and confirmed proof of the existence of God would be awful.  I prefer the faith based model.

I have always felt that mathematical relationships are too pure to be coincidence, and their existence alone (as well as how they correlate to physical properties) are about as close to proof of Divine Creation / Intervention that we'll get.

Your mileage may vary. 

[IronRanger]

Actually, NM_Shooter, I wasn't questioning your faith or religious affiliation.  I was commenting on your comments about "leaving the herd" and that some of your beliefs are definitely within a herd, just on one side of the fence or the other.

We all hold some herdisms as truth.  I just like to walk the fenceposts when possible.    

________________

My own mother has now decided that this government has gone renegade. She's never been one to question the government before until now. What turned her around was this business of declaring pro-lifers possible terrorists. She is a pro life Catholic and has written many letters over the years. Now she finds out that after being a good citizen all these years her government considers her a terrorist. I never thought I'd see the day she would agree with me on this.

My Mom's the same way.  She sent me to catechism, sent me down a religious path.  She's very much pro-life.  I've been trying to convince her of the government-gone-rogue mentality, but she's not there...YET.  I can always hope (and press forward with our disagreements on such subjects). 

[NM_Shooter]

You are only a member of a "herd" if you can't logically answer the question of why you are there.  I routinely challenge my own beliefs.  Why not?

We can all fit into some statistical group.  Even the anti-social psychopaths.  They can be grouped too.  It makes for an interesting afternoon when they (we?  ) get together.

If you are going to be a lemming, it's probably best to be near the back of the pack. 

I support breaking from the herd.  Be a smart-flocker instead. 

It's pretty simple....Eyes open.  Ears open.  Smart questions.  Think!

[IronRanger]

You are only a member of a "herd" if you can't logically answer the question of why you are there.  I routinely challenge my own beliefs.  Why not?

Agreed, but the labeling makes us psychologically comfortable with an idea.  (ie, he's a conspiracy theorist, so I'm on the right side of this argument.)  If you came to a conclusion through reason, logic and free will, then I agree:  You're not sheep.  It's the ones who don't differentiate between a person's thought-out position and a "I go with my gut" attitude on major moral decisions I despise. 

Then again, it's nice that we can have these moral positions instead of worrying about day-to-day survival on a real, guttural level.

If you are going to be a lemming, it's probably best to be near the back of the pack.

There's always crowd surfing.   

[Windpower]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0mrQo2WReU&feature=player_embedded

[glenn kangiser]

That is some great de-bunking them there conspiracy wacko's, Windpower.  Thanks.

[Ernest T. Bass]

Even if there were no explosives involved and the planes were the sole cause of the collapse, couldn't it still have been government-contrived? Regardless of how the buildings came down, they did--much to benefit of our oil-thirsty leaders. Coincidence Maybe we're over complicating things by nitpicking about the mechanical details of the attack. What difference does it make?

[glenn kangiser]

The effect is exactly what the PNAC wanted to get the people to follow their script.  Manufacturing consent - that's right Andrew.  

The details make no difference.  The result is what they desperately needed and wanted.  

An airlines security man I met said he was surprised they would go that far (Killing - sacrificing ~3000 citizens) to accomplish their goals.  That was after I talked to him for about a half hour and he knew I was safe to talk to.  He was afraid and cautious about talking of it, it was obvious.  He knew a lot more than just what he admitted.

[firefox]

I believe someone stated that there was an Israeli business
in the WTC that left before their contract was up just before the collapse.

We all know that Israeli intel is one of the best in the world.

I think that if you can either prove or disprove that this company had a legitament reason for terminating their contract and leaving the premises just before the incident, then you will have a good case for deciding whether this was a conspiracy or not.

Bruce

[Sonoran]

That is some great de-bunking them there conspiracy wacko's, Windpower.  Thanks.

Glenn, I watched that video and I think that you have the wrong idea. I say it's satirical and he's actually on your side.

[glenn kangiser]

Yeah - I think you are right. 

[Windpower]

Yeah - I think you are right. 

I think so, too

[Bishopknight]

Whether I believe or not believe the official story of 9/11, I believe what is most important is to continue debating the events surrounding that day.  I believe we must always question the information and motivations of elected officials.