Great Day talks to Architect Richard Gage about 9/11
Is this mainstream enough? hmm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW0SZCN6hdw
http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?s=10445264
A small Fox station trying to fill airtime in a regional market hardly qualifies as an endorsement for Gage or his positions. Locally, we hear (on nationally syndicated stations) about the alien festival at Roswell, Chakacubra (sp?), and mystery lights in the Sandias.
Here's some more video of your champion:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/richard-gage-aia-and-crackpot.html
You can also find lots of folks providing their own data about Gage and evidence that his theory(?) is crap. Including Gage's modification of audio tracks on video to remove cutting charge sounds.
http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=32930
Folks will have to reason their way through this though. Gage's sheeple might be a smaller herd, but sheeple all the same.
Thanks Glenn
679
Licensed Architects and Degreed professionals agree that a new independant investigation of the events of 911 needs to be started
http://www.ae911truth.net/signpetition.php
not a few professionals apparently agree with Gage and have put their reputation on the line by signing their real names to the petition
now who are the sheeple, NM_Shooter (if that is your real name)
Oh, and at the Shultz forum link, 'Robert the liberal' is not even very good at his straw man argument or his cheap shot ad hominums
Also robert's link
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-14.php
is crap -- doesn't work
Apparently his straw man ascertion about the sound is fabricated
::)
some sheeple will believe just about anything without investigating or trying to think it seems
Quote from: Windpower on June 04, 2009, 12:50:30 PM
679
Licensed Architects and Degreed professionals agree that a new independant investigation of the events of 911 needs to be started
Well, feel free to use your own money to pay for the investigation. Don't use mine!
I believe what I believe through my own observations and logic. Not because some left or right wing chemtrail sniffing sheepherder tells me to believe something.
If you use just a teeny amount of logic, combined with common sense, you can pretty rapidly figure it out for yourself. Good luck!
Cost ?
that's it ?!?!?
Maybe this will put it into pespective
Investigating Bill Clintons pecadillo (no deaths) $40 to $70 million (depends on the source)
Investigating the Challeger crash (7 deaths) $175 Million
911 Commission (About 3000 deaths)
$3,000,000
Kean wanted an additional $11 M but didn't get it --seems the Whitehouse didn't think it was worth it
Debating 9/11 is like debating who killed JFK and just as pointless.
Not really pointless, Scott, because it is where the whole switch of public opinion was engineered by the war party - the Military Industrial complex Eisenhower warned about, and it is why we currently have our military in Iraq and Afghanistan protecting the oil and the pipelines as well as the lives of the highly paid contractors.
Debating it is something we can do all day and get nowhere, agreed. A real unfettered investigation that is not covered up by the government would be nice..... but there is about as much chance of that as seeing Obama's real birth certificate.
Yup. Mostly cost.
Believe in whatever you want to believe in. Just don't waste more of my money on unsubstantiated silliness. That goes for Clinton's peccadillo too. (although that was substantiated)
IT is so good to hear JFK's voice again
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=jfk+speech+on+secret+societies&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=JFK+speech+#
So because it cost money to investigate -
it is OK that rogue agents from our government and Mossad likely murdered over 3000 of our citizens, firefighters and emergency personnel, for furtherance of their cause as planned out/scripted by the PNAC, Brzezinski, to get approval for attacking Afghanistan to put in the Unocal pipeline, Get the oil from and put the worlds largest embassy in Iraq - a defenseless destroyed country ( Reporter Question -"What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 -- GWB "Nothing"
We don't have enough concern for our own citizens and children to get a real investigation because it costs money - but we have enough money for unending ripoff bailouts.
They are all part of the same animal.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on June 04, 2009, 06:08:29 PM
We don't have enough concern for our own citizens and children to get a real investigation because it costs money - but we have enough money for unending ripoff bailouts.
They are all part of the same animal.
Amen.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on June 04, 2009, 02:43:05 PM
If you use just a teeny amount of logic, combined with common sense, you can pretty rapidly figure it out for yourself. Good luck!
What is the logic and common sense you speak of?
Logic and common sense must have been the reason the German citizens followed Hitler.
"That guy sure can give a speech, he sounds like he knows what he's doing. It must be the Jew's fault that we are miserable. And since he is our leader, their is no possible chance that he would lead us in the wrong direction."
I don't know what happened on 9/11. But I'm not going to write it off with the "common sense" reasoning of "our government wouldn't do that."
Sonoran, your opinion is being generated by emotion.
Logic and common sense? Okay. here's a 101 class on why the 9/11 inside job / controlled demolition is complete idiocy.
First of all, no one can provide one shred of evidence that the world trade towers were brought down with explosives. All the conspiracy folks have are theories. Zero evidence. ZERO.
Those towers were maintained and secured by hundreds of personnel. In order to use controlled demolitions, that building would have had to have had the structure covered up with explosives and controls.
You would have had to have a huge team of persons to do this, and they would have had to place tons of explosives under the eyes of the maintenance and security of the building.
So you'd have to have almost every security and maintenance worker on the paycheck. Not only that, but you'd also have to convince them to come to work. All of them. Lets also not forget the building and fire inspectors that work for the city, as well as all the various sub-contractors in and out of the building. EVERYBODY with access to the steel would have to be paid to keep their mouths shut.
Then, once the buildings are destroyed, you'd have to have everybody on the rescue teams and cleanup teams on the payroll too. Any sign of det-cord, primers / timers / tape, explosive residue all carefully removed. Oh, and by the way, the world wide media will be watching closely. Does any of that seem even remotely possible?
And.. the plane, being flown by guys that have never flown a big jet before would have to hit the towers in exactly the right places. Otherwise they would have displaced some of the explosives that were planted in the building which would have scattered out. Or, they would have destroyed the timing of the explosives. So those planes had to hit exactly right. Those were some fantastic pilots, being able to hit exactly where they needed to.
And, we'll have to use timed charges that don't make any explosive sounds.
So here's some bonus stuff for you.
Take a look at these websites. The PM one is pretty interesting.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
So... there is a bundle of logic and common sense. Quid Pro Quo... your turn conspiracy folks.
If you have any actual hard evidence, show it. If you have any logical reasoning, bring it up.
And by the way Glenn, I don't endorse bailouts either. Leave my money alone for this stupid crap. I get pretty riled up when people float up BS conspiracy lunacy and demand investigations funded by taxpayer dollars.
I'm sure that there are organizations that will take your money to investigate your conspiracies. You want folks to believe your insanities? Prove you believe them yourself by funding them.
Put your money where your mouth is.
(I haven't read into the conspiracy theory argument or your argument.)
Well, I can tell you are very upset NM. I want to reason with your argument. I'm not saying this is true, I'm just providing a different viewpoint.
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about how explosives would operate in a demolition.
I do know that all kinds of people reported hearing explosions. I would like to know what they were from.
And about the explosives and cords...I wonder how many miles of electrical and internet cord were in that building. I can imagine that explosive wire would be hard to find in that mess. I would also like to suggest the possibility of remote detonators that don't require a wire.
My reasoning for why it isn't a conspiracy is that I don't understand how US citizens could follow the orders to destroy the building. If it was done by the U.S., I'm sure that the people who did the grunt work that day arent reaping any reward, at least not enough to bury their conscience.
Just as the ones who are sure there was and is a conspiracy can see the evidence of a coverup, the ones who support he Bush administration will not even consider looking at the evidence. There is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that an investigation is needed.
There are plenty of people volunteering with things that need to be investigated and spending their own money to do it. The big money becomes necessary to keep the evidence hidden.
Securecom - Walker and Bush family were in charge of security at WTC, Dulles and Logan. That should take carae of the insiders. I work in big buildings such as these - Inside the walls are tons of places where hardly anyone ever goes or has access to. The building was shut down previous to 9/11 for both elevator and computer repairs.
Israeli companies un-explainedly moved out of the trade center even though their lease was not up prior to 9/11
Evidence - molten pools of steel for weeks - thermite or thermate evidence presented above - if you won't look, you won't see.
Quote from: Sonoran on June 04, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
(I haven't read into the conspiracy theory argument or your argument.)
This is exactly the source of my frustration. People don't examine the information on their own, but prefer to let others do it for them. So we have two main camps...the conspirator camp who believe that the government covers up everything. The other camp believe that the conspirator folks want to blame everything on the government.
Sheeple.
Stay out of either flock. But look at the information that is available. Listen to both sides, check their creds.
I'm also frustrated that you ask for a demonstration of the common sense reasoning, but then tell me you didn't read through it.
Here... watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0&feature=related
As for another of the conspiracy camp's experts, Stephen Jones. He was caught red handed doctoring video to intentionally mislead. Why would he do that? Pay attention starting at 1:50 in this next video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg
I grew up in a rural area of Arkansas, and saw firsthand what happens when a mobile home burns. There are large puddles of Aluminum all over the ground, just from the heat of the structure... no accelerators such as diesel required.
No evidence to support conspiracy. ZERO. Emotion only.
My brother was at the hotel (Mariott?) and checked out the morning of 9/10. Perhaps he was involved too?
Use common sense. Break from the herd!
Go prove it to yourself
Get some aluminum and melt it
then take it out into the sun and pour it out
better yet get a video camera and film it
I guarantee that you will not see bright yellow orange light being emmitted from the molten aluminum
try it yourself
I would do it, but I'm sure you would say I doctored or faked the video
In shop class back in the 60's we learned how to make aluminum castings using green sand molds
We heated the aluminum in steel crucibles placed in a gas furnace to molten temperatures (much hotter than the temperatures that can be obtained from burning Jet A and office debris in open air)
the video said that molten aluminum glows if you get it hot enough
but
I remember that the steel crucible was glowing when removed from the furnace -- the aluminum wasn't -- at least I couldn't see any glow in the shop lit by fluorescent lights -- the steel crucible however was glowing
the molten aluminum was just a dull gray
The other thing about molten aluminum is that it cools off quite fast -- it certainly would not continue to glow after falling hundreds of feet through air
try it your self
Another thing is that the presence of thermite has been found in the dust and debris -- this is proven
I can't teach you physics. You didn't get the aluminum hot enough to emit photons.
Google "molten aluminum"
If you are up for a challenge, google "black body radiation".
Here's a theoretical spectrum. Impurities in the metal and atmospheric conditions can change this somewhat.
(https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q46/nm_longshot/moltenAluminum.gif)
Thermite was used in the recovery process. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
No Conspiracy Evidence. ZERO.
"Here's a theoretical spectrum."
Theoretical
Fine
Now go melt some aluminum and prove it to yourself
"I can't teach you physics. You didn't get the aluminum hot enough to emit photons."
There is no need to 'teach' me physics or chemistry -- I had plenty in college
If you will re-read what I said about the steel crucible "emitting photons" while the aluminum was a dull gray....
Oh, and here's another challenge -- get yourself a piece of aluminum and some kerosene, use the Kerosene to make a fire under a steel pot with alumimum in it and tell me how long it takes to melt it
btw
They used plasma torches to cut up the steel not thermite
look it up
I think the soundtracks of your 'debunking' videos says a lot
they clearly know the mental maturity their target audience IYKWIM
I have cast lots of aluminum. Why would the aluminum be super heated if it was not contained in a vessle and was freely running out of the building. Barely a glow at melting temperature. There is plenty of fuel in a mobile home to melt the thin sheets of aluminum they are covered with and larger pieces of aluminum after the fire is well established.
The debunkers would of course be lying about thermite being used in the recovery process just to put it on the scene so thier ridiculous debunking theory would have substance. It is expensive - relatively dangerous uncontained and produces mass quantities of molten weld metal. That would not have been a problem in the destruction of the towers.
No matter how it was done, the towers would not fall at free fall speed from the comparatively small size of the airplanes. Don't forget the asbestos lady standing in the supposedly hot opening waving a white cloth for help. She did not die from the heat. She did not melt. She died from the controlled demolition.
Frank, I think the problem here is that you are only concerned with debunking this and not looking into the unanswered questions.
Even if you voted for Bush, it's not like you are responsible for the high treason of his administration in the complicity in, and assistance of the destruction of the WTC, in a effort to manufacture consent for unending attacks on middle east countries for oil and a power base to control future actions in that area. Obama is continuing the legacy.
Historically it has always proven to be oil and support of big corporate interests that motivate the US to attack sovereign nations around the world. Why would that change now?
It matters not whether you are Republican or Democrat. The goals are dictated at a higher level.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on June 05, 2009, 09:07:27 AM
Quote from: Sonoran on June 04, 2009, 10:34:13 PM
(I haven't read into the conspiracy theory argument or your argument.)
This is exactly the source of my frustration. People don't examine the information on their own, but prefer to let others do it for them. So we have two main camps...the conspirator camp who believe that the government covers up everything. The other camp believe that the conspirator folks want to blame everything on the government.
Sheeple.
THAT IS WHY I SAID I DON'T KNOW EITHER WAY!!!!!!!!!!!! KEEP TELLING ME THAT I RUN OFF EMOTION, I'M STARTING TO GET THERE.
I'm not on either side. And you gave "proof" that there was no way demolitions could be hidden in the building and I started asking questions about your argument, but I'm not on either side, so you really shouldn't say this about me.
If I was going to do what you are accusing me of, I would have said, "okay NM, that sounds right, I will not ask any questions."
"I'm also frustrated that you ask for a demonstration of the common sense reasoning, but then tell me you didn't read through it."
I wanted to hear what you had to say so I could read through it. d*
Since those who have questions about 911, chemtrails, etc have been called into question, I thought I'd post this video on HAARP - don't close your eyes & cover your ears now... it won't hurt to watch ;D
Bernard Eastlund, Tesla, PR people representing HAARP speak... worth watching... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dT1UUXNgMA&feature=related This on CBC show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkLTzesBxGE&NR=1
Eastlund's patent http://www.bariumblues.com/haarp_patent.htm or go to the official patent @
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,686,605.PN.&OS=PN/4,686,605&RS=PN/4,686,605
Probable prototype was the Russian Woodpecker http://wikimapia.org/455/Chernobyl-2-Russian-Woodpecker-OTH-Radar-of-type-DUGA-3
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Russian_Woodpecker
http://www.chornobyl.in.ua/en/chernobyl-2.htm
Also see this video from the HTV on chemical/biowarfare in the United Kingdom http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meyI01ku-8o&feature=related
BTW
Eastlund states in his patent: This invention has a phenomenal variety of possible ramifications and potential future developments. As alluded to earlier, missile or aircraft destruction, deflection, or confusion could result, particularly when relativistic particles are employed. Also, large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction or deflection of same. Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc. concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased. Similarly, environmental enhancement could be achieved by causing the breakup of various chemical entities such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and the like. Transportation of entities can also be realized when advantage is taken of the drag effects caused by regions of the atmosphere moving up along diverging field lines. Small micron sized particles can be then transported, and, under certain circumstances and with the availability of sufficient energy, larger particles or objects could be similarly affected. Particles with desired characteristics such as tackiness, reflectivity, absorptivity, etc., can be transported for specific purposes or effects. For example, a plume of tacky particles could be established to increase the drag on a missile or satellite passing therethrough. Even plumes of plasma having substantially less charged particle density than described above will produce drag effects on missiles which will affect a lightweight (dummy) missile in a manner substantially different than a heavy (live) missile and this affect can be used to distinguish between the two types of missiles. A moving plume could also serve as a means for supplying a space station or for focusing vast amount of sunlight on selected portions of the earth. Surveys of global scope could also be realized because the earth's natural magnetic field could be significantly altered in a controlled manner by plasma beta effects resulting in, for example, improved magnetotelluric surveys. Electromagnetic pulse defenses are also possible. The earth's magnetic field could be decreased or disrupted at appropriate altitudes to modify or eliminate the magnetic field in high Compton electron generation (e.g., from high altitude nuclear bursts) regions. High intensity, well controlled electrical fields can be provided in selected locations for various purposes. For example, the plasma sheath surrounding a missile or satellite could be used as a trigger for activating such a high intensity field to destroy the missile or satellite. Further, irregularities can be created in the ionosphere which will interfere with the normal operation of various types of radar, e.g., synthetic aperture radar. The present invention can also be used to create artificial belts of trapped particles which in turn can be studied to determine the stability of such parties. Still further, plumes in accordance with the present invention can be formed to simulate and/or perform the same functions as performed by the detonation of a "heave" type nuclear device without actually having to detonate such a device. Thus it can be seen that the ramifications are numerous, far-reaching, and exceedingly varied in usefulness.
Lots of stuff happens that we aren't privy to... sometimes later generations find out the truth - check out "Operation Paperclip" or "The Manhatten Project" - huge numbers of people were involved yet it stayed secret...
I'm glad I was in the mountains when this 9/11 bullstuff was started all over again. ;D ;D
I'm with Frank on this. Most likely everyone knows my opinions on 9/11 and other conspiracies by now and knows that I believe it is pointless to attempt discussion on this topic any further.
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. :)
Quote from: glenn kangiser on June 08, 2009, 08:35:19 AM
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.
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.
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 d*
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 ;D
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.
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 (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.
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" [waiting]
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.
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"
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.
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
I posted after a heated argument with some family members last night...politics, religion and 9/11. [cool]
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.
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.
Quote from: IronRanger on June 10, 2009, 09:39:43 AM
I posted after a heated argument with some family members last night...politics, religion and 9/11. [cool]
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.
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. :)
________________
Quote
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).
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? ;D) 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!
QuoteYou 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.
QuoteIf you are going to be a lemming, it's probably best to be near the back of the pack.
There's always crowd surfing. :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0mrQo2WReU&feature=player_embedded
That is some great de-bunking them there conspiracy wacko's, Windpower. Thanks. [waiting]
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?
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.
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
Quote from: glenn kangiser on June 12, 2009, 10:30:36 PM
That is some great de-bunking them there conspiracy wacko's, Windpower. Thanks. [waiting]
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.
Yeah - I think you are right. :)
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.
Quote from: Bishopknight on June 17, 2009, 02:09:08 PM
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.
I've read Brave New World and I'm halfway through 1984. I totally agree with you, it's good to question.
Oh btw I did read the PM page -- NOT 1000 degrees Centigrade
1000 Fahrenheit
How's that incandescent melted aluminum going .....
But wait
Hey we don't need to investigate 911 at all
We just need to listen to this expert
this guy understood the whole thing and decribed it with the smoothness of an infomercial on 911 !
GENIUS I tell ya !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GA4vc6XKHs&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: Sonoran on June 17, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: Bishopknight on June 17, 2009, 02:09:08 PM
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.
I've read Brave New World and I'm halfway through 1984. I totally agree with you, it's good to question.
For a world view changing read
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
Explains how the American empire steals the wealth of weaker counties and lines the pockets of US companies like Bechtel, Brown and Root, Haliburton ....
excellent
The only thing that gets me are the buildings falling at free-fall speed. I have yet to hear anything that can explain that. A building pancaking in on itself is gonna take longer than 7-10 seconds (depending on which building we are discussing). Am I saying it was a controlled demo. job? No. Am I saying Uncle Sam did it? No. However, I'm not buying the other side's snake oil either.
As of now, the so-called "Conspiracy Theorist" have a one up in my opinion simply on the basis of the free-falling building. That should raise enough eyebrows that a better investigation should take place. I'd rather it be funded privately, but no matter HOW it is funded, each side will say the other side had a "Stake" so it's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kinda deal.
What saddens me for the most part, is that the mass media immediately qualifies people who question 9/11 events as quackery or conspiracy theorists. You'd think theres enough recent times in history that we've made the wrong assumption the first time that maybe we could have an open debate about the meanings of such attacks before we come to such firm conclusions.
I mean, I saw planes fly into the buildings. But I didn't see a plane fly into the pentagon and for some 'national security reason' they wont release the withheld footage of it flying into the pentagon. ( A white spec frame isn't enough ) It can't be harder to watch that seeing the planes flying into the twin towers. So are they hiding something? Or even lying?
In this particular case, I think they don't want to leak out any information on the strength or construction of the pentagon that might give future terrorists an advantage. That is not to imply that they wouldn't lie about just anything ;D
...and I think it is the PNAC scenario scripted and brought to life...as they desired.... :)
Quote from: Windpower on June 17, 2009, 03:52:19 PM
Oh btw I did read the PM page -- NOT 1000 degrees Centigrade
1000 Fahrenheit
How's that incandescent melted aluminum going .....
Your own camp leader refuted you point that aluminum does not glow. No need for me to prove it to you once I re-read and noticed he cleared you up on that.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on June 05, 2009, 02:24:58 PM
I have cast lots of aluminum. <snip> Barely a glow at melting temperature.
Temps were way above melting. You say you read the page and it was quoted 1000deg F? Nope. Read again. Here is the quote:
"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "
BTW... 1000C = 1832F.
Here's the page, paragraph 9 : http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
Windy, you're 0 for 2 on one post alone. Thanks for playing!
You throw a rug on a fire to put it out. A pile of rugs will not burn except on the outside, without a blower and or air circulation, of which the tower had neither. The NIST report is crap. Bought and paid for.
Don't forget the lady standing in the gaping hole waving a flag for help. She was standing - not melting. She did not die until they pulled the controlled demolition. She was real and she was identified.
Kurt Sonnenfeld : Exclusive interview
9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public
QuoteVoltaire Network: To what degree would your discoveries at Ground Zero expose the government's involvement in those events? Are you familiar with the investigations that have been carried out by numerous scientists and qualified professionals which not only corroborate your own findings but, in some instances, far exceed them? Do you regard such people as "conspiracy nuts"?
Kurt Sonnenfeld: At the highest levels in Washington, DC, someone knew what was going to happen. They wanted a war so badly that they at least let it happen and most likely even helped it happen.
Sometimes it seems to me that the "nuts" are those who hold to what they've been told with an almost religious fervor despite all of the evidence to the contrary — the ones who won't even consider that there was a conspiracy. There are so many anomalies to the "official" investigation that you can't blame it on oversight or incompetence. I am familiar with the scientists and qualified professionals to whom you refer, and their findings are convincing, credible, and presented according to scientific protocol — in stark contrast to the findings of the "official" investigation. In addition, numerous intelligence agents and government officials have now come forward with their very informed opinions that the 911 Commission was a farce at best or a cover-up at worst. My experience at Ground Zero is but one more piece of the puzzle.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
Ahh yes. The drug addict / flee the country to avoid a civil suit / murder suspect.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1208124,00.html
Obviously he was of high enough credibility to get a job with the highest security clearance to get into the areas of the WTC that were off limits to nearly everyone else.
I guess they would not paint him as an upstanding citizen if he is blowing the whistle on them.
In the interview it is stated that the Argentine court has investigated the allegations of the US services who want to silence him and found them to be false hence his continued political asylum.
Drug use is allowed even for the president of the United States as indicated by the Supreme Court installation of George W. Bush and Kenyan, Barry Soetoro.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/orlytaitzletter24feb09.shtml
His statement about FEMA setting up a day early (September 10th. 2001) to be ready for the event agrees with the news interview (Dan Rather if I recall correctly) with the FEMA first responder who stated the same thing.
Wonder how they knew that the 11th was the day?
One of the weakest forms of 'argument' is the "ad hominem"
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It is used extensively by 'debunkers' because they are too lazy or unable to make valid, logical counter-arguements to presented facts.
Windy! You're back! How's those physics classes going? Did they get to the deg F vs. deg C part yet? Let me know if you need more help.
Regards,
Shooter
P.S. Let's say you were on trial for a very serious charge and had a defense based on the integrity of a single person. Who would you rather have on the stand... (A) a well respected, squeaky clean professional providing evidence from their lifelong field of study, or (B)a drug abusing person recently under suspicion of murder, looking to make a name as a cinematographer off of whatever sensational interest your trial might generate ?
Lets try to keep this as educational discussion and light on personal attacks.
Once again let me point out that previous to the smear campaign he had passed highest security for FEMA. How did all that get by if the claims are true. Smearing to debunk is easy.
People wonder why more don't come forward with their proof of the government conspiracy lies and coverup. This is why.
I asked Dahr Jamail the same question. He said that to question the 9/11 coverup is political/journalistic suicide, no matter what the facts indicate.
Most of the professionals who support the government are highly indebted to or solely supported by the government or grants or payroll from the Federal Government. Most scientific study groups receive and are supported by this government money and most would not bite the hand that is feeding them.
The treasonous plot/takeover has been planned well enough to appease the believing minds of those who will not question the official story.
Add this one to the list. I suppose he is a wacko also.
General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!
Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III, head of all intelligence says:
Pentagon NOT hit by a plane
WTC 7 brought down by explosives
Media in America is controlled
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
Just wtched that
NOTE it has German subtitles
Sorry. No nibbles from me on this or any other CT thread any more. You'll believe what you want to believe. I'll believe what I want to believe.
I have much more important things to consider. Weather, chicken farming, gardening, cabin building, fishing. All a higher priority than arguing things that can and never will be proven (one way or the other).
You guys have fun.
It's the same from my side - :-\
No matter who speaks up or how credible they are, those who chose to believe the official conspiracy story will refuse to look at any proof of any type and even the Army Chief of All Intelligence becomes yet another conspiracy theorist.
Those who don't want to see what is being done to them simply will refuse to examine anything to the contrary. I only wish the government plotters deserved all of the faith the official believers have in them........... but they don't. :(
I feel it is still our duty to educate the younger ones on what is happening to them, so I will not stop... it is their future that is being stolen and their past that has been falsified.