the most bullshit i've ever seen in one place

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by Livingalife

So that one site says it closes off groups to investigate the rummage.

What kind of investigation would let "groups" of people to wander around evidence of a criminal terrorist attack?

Bin Laden was raised a Sunni Muslim he was born in Saudi Arabia and there are very few Shi'ites there.

Uh-huh

Also the blueprints were kept from the public until they were leaked.

They were leaked? By who? To what end?

Do you have any citations for this claim?

Besides, you're still wrong. You can easily obtain blueprints.

The firemen wanted the rummage investigated because it was very suspicious. Didn't want to head it. Just investigate it.

This is a federal investigation. The FD has no reason or jurisdiction to investigate. There is no rationale reason to do this, this would only serve to compromise the investigation.

Their federal government is heading it up -- there is absolutely zero need for a municipal FD to peruse it.

When I said "I can't explain how I wanted to blow something up" I was explaining how pissed off I was and everyone was after the attacks and wanted to attack the country who did the attacks.

Bloodlust is bloodlust.

The government did nothing when they were warned.

I didn't claim they did.

Pretty obvious to tighten border security or train security (something at least).

The Bush Administration is incompetent; I'm not debating that.

Many remain in the Madrid train bombings and in the London subway bombings.

Yeah, lots of people think the Apollo moon landing was a conspiracy too. Some people think that the Holocaust was a conspiracy as well.

Just because somebody believes in it, doesn't validate it.

Also 9/11 does lead to the invasion of Iraq. If we never had 9/11 over 50% of the country wouldn't want to go to war in Iraq.

You do understand that Afghanistan and Iraq are two different countries... right?

You see it united the people to attack these so called "terrorist".

Wait a second... are you trying to insinuate that Al-qaeda aren't terrorists?

Look up "terrorist" in a dictionary and then respond to that question.

Even though 9/11 as many Muslims claim that its against their religion.

Yes, and many claim it is the will of Allah. There is a huge sectarian gap in Islam. It's sort of like Protestantism and Catholicism.

From what I know Muslims are extremely religious, unlike Christians in terms of following the law of the religion and praying alot everyday.

.... you're joking, right?

Islamic Extremism goes all the way back to the Crusades.

Maybe Bin Laden did do the bombings, maybe he didn't. I dought he did.

Well, I hate to say it, but maybe I'll consider your opinion a little more valid, when you've become better informed.

It will never be revealed

Umm, besides an admission from Bin Laden himself and the 9-11 Commission Report, I don't know what other kind of revelation you need.

so get the troops out, tighten border security and such and move on and use the billions of dollars we are spending on Iraq for the U.S.

Fuck all the damage your country has done, it's not like you're actually responsible for it, right?

[Perpetual Burn]

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

SO I haven't finished reading them, and I'm not dismissing them, but the articles are written alot less professionally, far more emotative(which usually means they are more prone to bias) and have yet to debate the science. I'll keep reading though.

Thank you. I was hoping I wouldn't have to point it out first since it'd seem obvious. You might aswell quit reading the Prisonplanet link, it goes nowhere but it's worth a laugh. I'm not dedicating the rest of my night the Serendipity blog. But it starts off just as ad hominem.

Liquid, I can't beleive you would bring that weak literature up against Popular Mechanics.

[Liquidtruth]

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
(removed as it was written by someone from Prison Planet/Terror Storm)
http://www.teamliberty.net/id292.html

Sorry for the poor quality of my earlier links... Maybe these will be better? Let me know if you need more.

[Crackajacks]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...king_lies.html
http://www.teamliberty.net/id292.html

Sorry for the poor quality of my earlier links... Maybe these will be better? Let me know if you need more.

I only had time to read the first one since im writing a paper. Theres a pic about half way down and under it it says his:

At about seven seconds after the South Tower's top stated to plunge, the event has become quite explosive. The red arrow points to puffs of dust emerging from the mechanical floor, about ten floors below the zone of total destruction. If those puffs are due to the floors pancaking, then what is producing all of the dust in the explosion above, the floors containing the only concrete in the tower?

That is just amazingly dumb. He is saying all the dust from the top should only be a tiny bit because floors buckling only let out a little dust. The entire fucking building falling on top of itself is what is causing that dust and the fact that the lower floor looks like it has just started collapsing. Ive read many of the captions and its just some assclown guessing what it kinda looks like. not reliable at all.

[Adicted2aa]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
(removed as it was written by someone from Prison Planet/Terror Storm)
http://www.teamliberty.net/id292.html

Sorry for the poor quality of my earlier links... Maybe these will be better? Let me know if you need more.

Sorry I just don't have time, or I guess I should say effort, to even skim the articles. Care to sum up? All I really want to know about is building 7. thats the only thing that still seems odd to me.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

Sorry I just don't have time, or I guess I should say effort, to even skim the articles. Care to sum up? All I really want to know about is building 7. thats the only thing that still seems odd to me.

I will paste what 911review.com had to say about building seven.

Originally Posted by PM

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

Originally Posted by 911review.com

No amount of "physical damage to the south face of building 7" can account for these three collapse features:

* WTC 7 fell vertically with great precision.
* WTC 7 fell at nearly the rate of free-fall.
* WTC 7's rubble pile was amazingly tidy, confined almost entirely to the city block on which the building stood.

These characteristics are precisely what the art and science of controlled demolition seeks to accomplish through the precise placement and timing of the detonations of large number of explosive charges.

Originally Posted by PM

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Originally Posted by 911review.com

The construction of Building 7 was that of a typical modern skyscraper, except that it had even thicker beams near its base because it straddled an electrical substation. The idea of a "chain-reaction collapse", dressed up with the scientific sounding term progressive collapse, is ludicrous -- there are no examples of progressive total collapse of steel-framed buildings outside the alleged cases of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7.

Originally Posted by PM

FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline kink that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Originally Posted by 911review.com

And it dropped in a precisely vertical fashion, even though no vertical steel structure has ever collapsed straight down.

The photograph is from about 30 seconds into the explosion of the North Tower, and the dust cloud has already expanded to several times the volume of the building. Quantifying that expansion and using it to estimate the energy released in the collapse is the subject of the paper Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center* . It uses this photograph to estimate the volume of the dust cloud.

* Summary of the article at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/d...olumev3_1.html:
The dominant energy source assumed to be in play during the leveling of each of the Twin Towers was the gravitational energy due to their elevated mass. The energy sinks included the thorough pulverization of each tower's concrete, the vaporization of water, and the heating of air and suspended concrete dust in the ensuing dust cloud. Estimates for these energies are:

<table cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" border="1">
<tr><th>energy, KWH</th><th>source or sink</th></tr>
<tr><td align="right">+ 111,000</td><td>falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">- 135,000</td><td>crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2">
<em>ignoring water vaporization</em></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">- 400,000</td><td>heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">- 11,300,000</td><td>heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)</td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2">
<em>assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited</em></td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">- 1,496,000</td><td>vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">- 41,000</td><td>heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">- 1,145,000</td><td>heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)</td></tr>
</table>

The imbalance between sources and sinks is striking, no matter the relative shares of the thermodynamic and water vaporization sinks in accounting for the expansion. Moreover, it is very difficult to imagine how the gravitational energy released by falling mass could have contributed much to any of the sinks, since the vast majority of the tower's mass landed outside its footprint. The quantity for the crushing of concrete appears to be conservative since some reports indicate the average particle size was closer to 10 microns than 60 microns. The quantity for the heating of suspended concrete has a large amount of uncertainty, but the energy imbalances remain huge even when it is ignored entirely. All of these energy sink estimates are conservative in several respects.

* They are based on an estimate of dust cloud volume at a time long before the cloud stopped growing.
* They use a liberal estimate of the contribution of mixing to the volume.
* They ignore thermal losses due to radiation.
* They ignore the resistance to expansion due to the inertia of the suspended materials, and energy requirements to overcome it.

Conclusion

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.

[What'sThatSmell]

Originally Posted by WTC7_Lies

<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires:WTC bldg. 5 steel buckled&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->Can office fires cause large steel columns to buckle?<o></o>

The CT’s aren’t convinced yet. “Office fires, even if they’re started by jet fuel, can NOT get hot enough to cause huge steel columns to buckle!” (If the CTs have a mantra, it is this. Actually, they almost always use the strawman statement “to melt steel.”)<o>></o>>

CTs, you are dead wrong.<o>></o>>

<o>> </o>>

In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled<o>></o>>

on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.<o>></o>>

<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" oreferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <vath o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:320.25pt; height:427.5pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Luke\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_im age001.jpg" o:title="WTC 5 buckled steel"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o>></o>>

Source: FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15. http://tinyurl.com/m489x<o>></o>>

Imagine if this floor had also been hit by an airliner traveling at 400-500 knots, destroying and weakening surrounding columns and blasting the fire protection off the steel. Now imagine another 200 million pounds (90,718,000 kg.) of building resting on this damaged foundation.<o>></o>>
Another way of looking at this is, if office fires can’t get that hot, why is it the law in New York City that all steel-framed buildings over 1 story tall must have fire resistant coatings applied to their structural steel? http://tinyurl.com/j2abl<o>></o>>
<o>> </o>>
<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires:Barnett, Jonathan, On WTC 7 fireproofing&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->Jonathan Barnett, PhD, a fire protection engineer who investigated its collapse, says of WTC 7,<o>></o>>
“It doesn’t take that much fire protection to be removed for the steel to fail.”<o></o>
–The History Channel: Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters #13<o>></o>>
<o>> </o>>
As Frank Brannigan states in his Building Construction for the Fire Service text, there are still some misconceptions that steel construction and steel buildings are safe when attacked by fire. This is as far from the truth as you can imagine. http://tinyurl.com/fw69y<o>></o>>
<o>> </o>>
<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires:Column buckling in 90 West St.&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->Below: missing fire protection and fire-induced buckling on a 23^rd-floor column at 90 West St. This 9/11 fire was fueled by office contents only. Fire was fought and extinguished using lines run from a fireboat on the Hudson River. Columns on the on the 8^th floor also buckled.<o>></o>>

<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:318.75pt;height:392.25pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Luke\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_im age002.jpg" o:title="90 West Street column buckling damage foreproofing copy"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o>></o>>

Source: FEMA<o>></o>>

<o>> </o>>

<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:399pt;height:318.75pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Luke\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_im age004.jpg" o:title="Fire Protection Bankers Trust Building" cropbottom="9594f" cropright="2896f"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o>></o>>

<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires:Thermal protection damaged at 130 Liberty St.&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->Fire protection knocked off column & beam inside 130 Liberty St. by debris from the south tower. WTC 7 & 130 Liberty may have sustained similar damage, but the latter had only minor fires in its basement, which were extinguished. <o>></o>>
<o>> </o>>
Relatively small proportional losses of fire protection material are required before significant reductions in fire resistance are realized. <o>></o>>
<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires: Thermal Protection:Small loss = large effect&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]--> –From abstract, “A study of the effect of partial loss of protection on the fire resistance of steel columns.” Fire Technology, Feb. 2005 (Full article is purchase only)<o>></o>>
<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires:Unprotected steel fails quickly&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->Steel without thermal protection can fail extremely quickly in a fire:<o>></o>>
One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes. Firehouse.com Sept. 1998<o>></o>>
But protected steel, even without prior structural damage, presents its own hazards:<o>></o>>
Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances. Firehouse.com Sept. 1998<o>></o>>
<o>> </o>>
<o>> </o>>
<!--[if supportFields]> XE &quot;Steel in Fires: Madrid Windsor bldg. fire&quot; <![endif]--><!--[if supportFields]><![endif]-->To advertise their products, the Concrete Alliance uses the example of Madrid’s Windsor Building fire, in which all the structural steel in the fire-affected area collapsed, leaving the concrete core standing. Fire protection for the Windsor’s structural steel was in the process of being upgraded, but that work had not reached the upper levels. Arup, the fire protection engineering firm, says that the steel would likely have failed even if it had been fire-protected. <o>></o>>

<o>> </o>>

<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1028" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:355.5pt;height:509.25pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Luke\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_im age006.jpg" o:title="Concrete Alliance"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]--><o>></o>>

How absurd are the CT arguments? CTs often use the Windsor Building to support their claim that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed, completely ignoring the fact that fire destroyed the Windsor’s steel. The WTC buildings had cores of steel, not concrete.<o>></o>

No, the building did not have to be detonated by explosives to fall.

[rumandromanism]

This thread is so pointless. There are so many threads of this type already in General, and they all end up with constant bickering. Neither side will prove the other right. Are you all advanced physics majors? Were any of you in the planes or in the Pentagon/WTC? Even then, there are so many discrepencies in the story from survivors. Personally, there isn't enough evidence to persuade me either way.


Why can't we all just agree that the thousands of people who were merely doing their job or traveling by air died in vain. It was a fucking travesty. Being someone who has heard dozens of survivor stories from the actual survivors themselves, I can't hold enough contempt for this argument.

I'm finished. My $.02; take it or leave it.

[Predator1]

Personally, I think the 9-11 Truth movement is all a bunch of malarkey, jargon, and gobbledy-gook.

But really, I dont think there's any conspiracy. I just think our government is ridiculously ignorant and would rather lie to its people than deal with its problems honestly.

But at least I can see why some people are inclined to think that it WAS a conspiracy...

[weedzilla420]

there are some things that just don't add up and will never add up:

i do not believe the towers would have collapsed at virtually free fall speed, symetrically, into their own footprint w/o explosives causing a controlled demolition.

i do not believe wtc7 would have collpased at virtually free fall speed, symetrically, into its own foot print w/o explosives causing a controlled demolition. keep in mind, no plane hit wtc7.

i do not believe that a plane hit the pentagon for obvious reasons. the circular whole (which punched through 3 of the outter rings) was not large enough to accomodate a boeing passenger jet. there is no damage to the buiding where wings/tail section would have hit. they should have been sheared off laying on the lawn but that didn't happen either.

why would the first priority of the fbi be to confiscate surveilance video from adjacent businesses literally MINUTES after the attack? why would the govt continue to keep video that would PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt what hit the pentagon a secret. only two video clips have been released and neither show a plane hitting the pentagon.

this is just scratching the surface of the whole matter. i could go into a lot more detail but i won't. i just want others to understand by viewpoint even if you don't agree with it.

[sky dog]

Originally Posted by weedzilla420

why would the first priority of the fbi be to confiscate surveilance video from adjacent businesses literally MINUTES after the attack? why would the govt continue to keep video that would PROVE beyond any shadow of a doubt what hit the pentagon a secret. only two video clips have been released and neither show a plane hitting the pentagon.

Maybe the FBI took the videos so they could, ummm...analyze them?

And the bigger question is: if it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, why hasn't anyone said otherwise? Do you realize how many witnesses there were? Do you think every one of them drank the Kool-Aid and just decided that it would be fine to just perpetuate a huge lie?