911 revisited

Carra23

I think its funny that people still doubt 9/11 was an inside job. I was 17 when it happened and the very 1st thought that crossed my mind when I heard was ' theres something fishy going on here ' and the reason I thought that was because I didn't think it was possible to attack a country in this manner who spends billions maybe even trillions of dollars annually on defense . I thought maybe you could get away with one plane but not 5 in one day at different locations. Planes have set flight paths and if they deviate they are asked 3 times by radio to get back on course and if they ignore these requests fighter jets are scrambled. Why did this not happen and isnt it funny how the Americans went to Iraq shortly after this event and are still bloody there 8 years later ! they claimed to go after Saddam , how long has he been dead ? The American are the biggest terrorists in the world people need to wake up

meglome

uprising wrote: »

There are plenty of documentaries out there that comply or badly try to explain how it all happened, the official way.
But you seem bright enough to make up your own mind, the truth will set you free, cross reference and you'll smell the sh1t stink.
Happy hunting.

Hang on you just said that "There are plenty of documentaries out there that comply or badly try to explain how it all happened, the official way." and then said he should make up his own mind, right after telling him how bad the official version is.



Diddler82. It is right to check all the facts as best you can. However watch out for the large amount of misquoting, out of context quoting, implied connections between events without any actual evidence of a connection, downright fantasy and flawed science the CT sites are full of. Idle speculation is not your friend here so just take the small things that can be proven within reason and work along. You'll be told constantly to look at the bigger picture by CT's but when we've looked in here at the small provable things that should make up the 'bigger picture' they didn't support the conspiracy, weird that.

nullzero

9-11 never ceases to cause arguments does it?
Personally I find 9-11 bizarre.
It's bizarre to think that 9-11 as it is officially depicted could ever have happened.
Regardless of the arguments and counter arguments about engineering issues regarding the WTC towers etc... the very fact that the hijacked planes could have been in the air for the length of time they were after being hijacked and then still being up there long enough to crash into their targets in the country with the most advanced aerospace defense network in history baffle's me.
I think it's possible to show 9-11 stinks without reference to imploding buildings or other such side issues.

The fact is that people who have an open mind will look at 9-11 and see what's right in front of their face.
People who claim to have an open mind but in fact would rather die a long and painful death before admitting their views are not the only ones with any substance will brand the people who do question 9-11 as conspiracy nuts and idiots.
This is something that will probably never change in a meaningful way.
If I've learned anything from discussing Conspiracy Theories on Boards.ie it is that those who seek to debunk any or all CT's usually have those who take a genuine interest in the subjects out numbered and often have moderators or Admins on their side.
The upshot of that is that engaging in any sort of discussion is usually pointless and always seems to descend into petty "I say you say" arguments accompanied by quote tower replies and arguments of anything but the topic at hand.

Put simply, if you want to research 9-11 truth, boards.ie is not an ideal starting point, but it is THE place to be if you feel like debunking it and belittling those who take an interest in it.

Táck

im always baffled by the third tower falling.

i was at the site last week, there was a guy there, im sure anyone who's been knows who im talking about. he's cleans the memorial plaque and talks about the conspiracies etc etc. but he did say, what about the third tower. everyone forgets that. even the government, conveniently.

he also said that all three towers were loaded with explosives to bring them down but they made a logistical mistake thinking that one of the towers would bring down tower 7, when it didnt they had to bring it down themselves.

another baffling thing, there might be an explanation to this one i havent heard, but the planes were burnt to near dust but the hijacker passports were found. weird.

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

9-11 never ceases to cause arguments does it?
Personally I find 9-11 bizarre.
It's bizarre to think that 9-11 as it is officially depicted could ever have happened.
Regardless of the arguments and counter arguments about engineering issues regarding the WTC towers etc... the very fact that the hijacked planes could have been in the air for the length of time they were after being hijacked and then still being up there long enough to crash into their targets in the country with the most advanced aerospace defense network in history baffle's me.
I think it's possible to show 9-11 stinks without reference to imploding buildings or other such side issues.

The fact is that people who have an open mind will look at 9-11 and see what's right in front of their face.
People who claim to have an open mind but in fact would rather die a long and painful death before admitting their views are not the only ones with any substance will brand the people who do question 9-11 as conspiracy nuts and idiots.
This is something that will probably never change in a meaningful way.
If I've learned anything from discussing Conspiracy Theories on Boards.ie it is that those who seek to debunk any or all CT's usually have those who take a genuine interest in the subjects out numbered and often have moderators or Admins on their side.
The upshot of that is that engaging in any sort of discussion is usually pointless and always seems to descend into petty "I say you say" arguments accompanied by quote tower replies and arguments of anything but the topic at hand.

We tried in here a few months back to go into the fine details of 911. The idea being the 'bigger picture' we were told to be looking for should be made up of small individual events/things. At every step the small things didn't fit the conspiracy.

I think this was one of the threads. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055532869

This thread isn't about how 911 happened but feel free to start one and I'll happily spell out using logic and evidence that your opinions above are incorrect or misguided. If you just want people who agree with your opinions then maybe this isn't the place, there are loads of CT sites with no balance which fit that bill.

nullzero wrote: »

Put simply, if you want to research 9-11 truth, boards.ie is not an ideal starting point, but it is THE place to be if you feel like debunking it and belittling those who take an interest in it.

Ah this old chestnut. Supposedly CT's are sceptics but how often when you challenge their opinions and assumptions we're 'belittling' them, or we're narrow minded, or we're blind, or we're sheeple etc etc etc. Look either you can back up these opinions of yours or you can't.

meglome

Táck wrote: »

im always baffled by the third tower falling.

i was at the site last week, there was a guy there, im sure anyone who's been knows who im talking about. he's cleans the memorial plaque and talks about the conspiracies etc etc. but he did say, what about the third tower. everyone forgets that. even the government, conveniently.

he also said that all three towers were loaded with explosives to bring them down but they made a logistical mistake thinking that one of the towers would bring down tower 7, when it didnt they had to bring it down themselves.

There's no mystery about WTC7 collapsing. The CT's say there is but given the very specific design of this building it's no surprise, after the fact anyway. Look up one of the old threads, there's some actual balance in them.

Táck wrote: »

another baffling thing, there might be an explanation to this one i havent heard, but the planes were burnt to near dust but the hijacker passports were found. weird.

In an explosion light objects can be blown clear, this is what you'd expect not the other way around. They found many smaller items belonging to the passengers and crew, just as you'd expect. They found one hijackers passport along with these other items. See other threads.

nullzero

9-11 is still something shrouded my mystery to some extent.
There are a lot of questions that have been raised and never answered.
There are also a lot of hokey conspiracy theories that make no sense at all.
However rather than feel that because some moron implies that it was all carried out by Israel or some other mad theory we shouldn't simply then be satisfied with the official version of events.
I think taking the extreme examples of mad cap conspiracies based on nothing more than opinion as proof that the official version if iron clad is as much an exercise in stupidity as believing every conspiracy surrounding 9-11.

Clearly some people are happy to believe the 9-11 commission report and that’s their right, however simply because something is conducive with popular consensus does not make it right, no more than a group of people who believe that vampires were responsible for 9-11.
Group think can be incredibly detrimental to rationality and affects peoples ability to debate things properly. Once people begin to agree with you then it’s very easy to become self assured and sometimes zealous in your beliefs, be that on either side of the conspiracy divide.

Personally I believe that researching 9-11 is a worth while endeavor and whilst a lot of people here may disagree with me it is my feeling that it is simply the group think on this forum which is prevailing on this matter not the actual truth.
While I take issue with the mad cap conspiracies surrounding 9-11 I also take issue with the holier than thou opposition to them from the pseudo intellectuals who usually can be found on internet forums.
I believe neither side is right and that the truth as is usually the case is somewhere in the middle ground, the problem is getting people out of their group think mentality and getting them to be rational, usually first with each other. Only then can we start to address the issue rationally, however reaching that point is the really difficult thing to do as most people are too stubborn and pig headed to accept that in their far from infinite wisdom they may on one occasion in fact be wrong about something.

Penn

nullzero wrote: »

9-11 is still something shrouded my mystery to some extent.
There are a lot of questions that have been raised and never answered.
There are also a lot of hokey conspiracy theories that make no sense at all.
However rather than feel that because some moron implies that it was all carried out by Israel or some other mad theory we shouldn't simply then be satisfied with the official version of events.
I think taking the extreme examples of mad cap conspiracies based on nothing more than opinion as proof that the official version if iron clad is as much an exercise in stupidity as believing every conspiracy surrounding 9-11.

Clearly some people are happy to believe the 9-11 commission report and that’s their right, however simply because something is conducive with popular consensus does not make it right, no more than a group of people who believe that vampires were responsible for 9-11.
Group think can be incredibly detrimental to rationality and affects peoples ability to debate things properly. Once people begin to agree with you then it’s very easy to become self assured and sometimes zealous in your beliefs, be that on either side of the conspiracy divide.

Personally I believe that researching 9-11 is a worth while endeavor and whilst a lot of people here may disagree with me it is my feeling that it is simply the group think on this forum which is prevailing on this matter not the actual truth.
While I take issue with the mad cap conspiracies surrounding 9-11 I also take issue with the holier than thou opposition to them from the pseudo intellectuals who usually can be found on internet forums.
I believe neither side is right and that the truth as is usually the case is somewhere in the middle ground, the problem is getting people out of their group think mentality and getting them to be rational, usually first with each other. Only then can we start to address the issue rationally, however reaching that point is the really difficult thing to do as most people are too stubborn and pig headed to accept that in their far from infinite wisdom they may on one occasion in fact be wrong about something.

Good post man.

I don't think I 100% believe the official report. Generally, I believe the reports about how the buildings collapsed etc, and as I design structural beams, it all seems perfectly logical to me and is what I would expect. In terms of who was behind it, the actions of the government that day etc, I can't say I would put my faith in the official reports.

People seem to think there is a wall between CT'ers and Skeptics here. There isn't. There is a line in the sand. We tend to stay on our side, but we can occasionally step over the line on some matters. Things are never black and white.

All we can do is try to gather as much unbiased facts as possible and judge for ourselves. People will always interpret facts there own way, but no one can tell you what to believe

moviesrme

I have seen all the 911 documentaries. they are of varying quality but mostly conjecture and half baked ramblings. There are some notable exceptions.
I would have characterised my position up to 2 weeks ago as interested but no in any way convinced about 911. Then I saw Dave VonKleists' "in plane sight" (not full title but google will help you). It is much like the others but tthe Pentagon section managed to convince me a plane did not hit it and this is all he did but it is enough because with that the whole world view falls apart.
Last weekend I was looking around in bbc5.tv website. In amongst all the usual 911 stuff I found what I was looking for all along. I cant believe it has taken 1 and 1/2 years of bumbling around on the net to stumble on it. The documentary in question is "blueprint" by Richard Gage (again incomplete but google it). This really does cut thru' the bs and prove te case very convincingly. I found it impeccable and really can't praise this guy enough. Check it out.
Now I'm basically waiting for the rest of the world to catch on. If this were shown all over like Fahrenheit 911 for example there would be riots in the street. It is that good.

Tipsy Mac

It would take a couple of hundred people to be involved for it to be an inside job, ie you would need people taking over the planes, people involved in government agencies not investigating properly, people within the fire service not investigating properly. Within this circle many would have cracked and told all by now, lots would have suffered post traumatic stress and told all, they would have went to the media and sold their stories...

uprising

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

It would take a couple of hundred people to be involved for it to be an inside job, ie you would need people taking over the planes, people involved in government agencies not investigating properly, people within the fire service not investigating properly. Within this circle many would have cracked and told all by now, lots would have suffered post traumatic stress and told all, they would have went to the media and sold their stories...

And their lives

uprising

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

It would take a couple of hundred people to be involved for it to be an inside job, ie you would need people taking over the planes, people involved in government agencies not investigating properly, people within the fire service not investigating properly. Within this circle many would have cracked and told all by now, lots would have suffered post traumatic stress and told all, they would have went to the media and sold their stories...

The 9/11 Whistle-Blowers
Dr. Graham, Chief Judiciary for Clinton Impeachment David Schippers, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer & Able Danger, FBI Operative Randy Glass, FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh & P-Tech
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795

humanji

Sorry for going off topic, but I'm confused. Is this thread an amalgamation of some other threads? People seem to be answering posts that are posted afterwards.

moviesrme

In response to Tipsy mac basically saying there was too many involved for it not to have come out if it was on inside job:
You are onto something here. Your point is well made. I would come at it form the point of view of Richard Gage though; ie the evidence speaks for itself. I am convinced. There is no room at this stage for doubt. It was an inside job.

How can I reconcile this apparent paradox. Start with the facts. They did it and then ask how. All the Norad standing down stuff etc and many of the peripheral people would not know enough to contradict the official story and would basically be like the rest of us ie subject to the mass hypnosis of media and govt. officials. The folks involved directly would number certainly 100 anyway but suppose I am one of these and I decide to out the rest. Why would I do it. I have the fact I was involved to contend with. I have the dollars I no doubt have as a result to protect. I have the task of convincing an extremely skeptical public.

You see we are not that hard to convince. If we are predisposed to the bad guys being out there and we see with our own eyes planes going into the buildings and are fed a line we will eat it up. In our case consider Bryan Dobson coming on the 6-1 news and proclaiming it so or Pat kenny or Matt Cooper or George Hook. In short we believe them. Incidentially those media people would be innocent also and all the more convincing for it.

Basicallly it is the "Emperors new clothes" all over again.
You don't realise how pervasive the deception is. I remember the "seconds form disaster" or Discoveries "why the twin towers collapsed" These programmes usually tell the truth on a train crash or whatever. They lay it out for you. In this case the deception is subtle. The towers were shower with spindly cores and weak trusses supporting the floors when the reality was they were extremely strong.

It is good you ask the questions though. Don't take my word for it though. Look at the cited docs and do your own reading and if you still think like you do then fair enough that is your prerogative.

moviesrme

So as I have said I am convinced. The world is not what I thought at all. Corporations run it and the almighty buck rules. People do not matter.

I find this simultaneously exciting and repulsive if I'm honest. Are we being mass medicated with flouride in the water. Yes I think so. What about cancer. My uncle recently died of cancer. A good man through and through. The corporations make the additives and the pesticides and the plastics that slowly poison us and provide the medications to cure us. Always the dolllars.

You know they have a spray now that once applied stops the wheat from growing as high as it used to and in that way it doesn't lodge (get knocked down by wind and rain) so yields go up. Monsanto with the Roundup ready canola (oilseed rape I think) ie. they modified the crop so you can spray on roundup and it will kill everything but the crop. Designer crops!
Who believes oil is running out with this new worldview. Not me. I reckno the probably bumped of Stanley Meyer (running cars from water).

Anywat I'm rambling. Point is anything is possible with these Fu**ers! I would not be surprised to see a mushroom cloud on the box someday.

ihatewallies

<mod snip>

moviesrme

It seems the mods have deleted the picture ihatewallies put up. but I saw it before that. I stand by my position. It is a considered one arrived at over a number of years. That's all I can say. I know it may appear out there but do a little research. I'd be surprised if you don't arrive eventually at the same point.

meglome

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

It would take a couple of hundred people to be involved for it to be an inside job, ie you would need people taking over the planes, people involved in government agencies not investigating properly, people within the fire service not investigating properly. Within this circle many would have cracked and told all by now, lots would have suffered post traumatic stress and told all, they would have went to the media and sold their stories...

The thing is the more you look at it the more people would be needed to cover it up. I reckon in the thousands, given the number of people actually involved in different aspects of the aftermath especially. Logic would suggest you couldn't keep that many people quiet, and let's be straight here Government's have traditionally been terrible at keeping big secrets.

moviesrme

I had not considered this at all really till Tipsy Mac brought it up. It does seem difficult to explain how they could keep everyone in line.
But I think Richard Gage has effectively proved the case that it was an inside job in his "blueprint" documentary. I really can't see any other explanation when you look at the collapse of all 3 towers closely ie the videos.
I say the videos because it is easy to allege stuff on paper or the net and provide "proof" but it really comes down to the credibility of the individual unless you can see the thing. All of Gages' proof is based on the videos so you can see it. That way there is no doubt. That is why I'm convinced.
Ok you say they touched up the videos maybe. I don't think so. I remember the collapses on the day of 911 and they are the same videos alright. Plus none of the debunkers say he touched the videos up.

Also this would have been a military operation. Once you understand that its easier to see how they could cover it up. What about the Manhattan project? That was kept secret and many many people were involved there. Also I don't believe that tight a lid is necessary. For example weren't a few military types (ie defecting generals or reasonably high ups at least) on the tv saying its an inside job and the coverup survived that easily. It is fairly easy to discredit somebody if you want to. For example somebody could accuse me of being a paedophile and straight away I'm seriously on the back foot.
Also remember the viewing public is half asleep. I do not mean this disparagingly. I just mean they are working hard, raising kids, paying bills, not looking for conspiracies and they have "gilt edged" media explaining it all to them. I'm not saying the media are in on it. Mostly it is above the media.
Our media in Ireland is ineffectual. Listen to Matt Cooper or Pat Kenny anyday. There is very little investigative journalism. Primetime is the best of all. They have "done the state some service" . But Matt just gets 2 guys form opposing sides on and has a chat. One says black is white and the other says white is black and Matt tries not to offend anyone. Listen to it. If he was any good he'd find out the truth on an issue and call somebody on air on it. I mean pull their knickers down around their ankles and show the truth to the listeners. But I digress.

meglome

I don't rule out conspiracy I just haven't seen proof of one for 911..

moviesrme wrote: »

I had not considered this at all really till Tipsy Mac brought it up. It does seem difficult to explain how they could keep everyone in line.
But I think Richard Gage has effectively proved the case that it was an inside job in his "blueprint" documentary. I really can't see any other explanation when you look at the collapse of all 3 towers closely ie the videos.

I don't think you could keep everyone in line.

Maybe three similarly designed building collapsing in similar ways might not need a conspiracy to explain it.

moviesrme wrote: »

I say the videos because it is easy to allege stuff on paper or the net and provide "proof" but it really comes down to the credibility of the individual unless you can see the thing. All of Gages' proof is based on the videos so you can see it. That way there is no doubt. That is why I'm convinced.
Ok you say they touched up the videos maybe. I don't think so. I remember the collapses on the day of 911 and they are the same videos alright. Plus none of the debunkers say he touched the videos up.

Yep it's very easy to allege stuff. Why don't you give us a list of why the video shows the buildings collapsing isn't from the planes/fires?

moviesrme wrote: »

Also this would have been a military operation. Once you understand that its easier to see how they could cover it up. What about the Manhattan project? That was kept secret and many many people were involved there. Also I don't believe that tight a lid is necessary. For example weren't a few military types (ie defecting generals or reasonably high ups at least) on the tv saying its an inside job and the coverup survived that easily. It is fairly easy to discredit somebody if you want to. For example somebody could accuse me of being a paedophile and straight away I'm seriously on the back foot.

The Manhattan project was secret at the time not eight years after the bomb was created. Strangely eight years after 911 people are not lining up to spill the beans. And sometime you don't need to discredit people they discredit themselves by the stories they tell and how they tell them.

moviesrme wrote: »

Also remember the viewing public is half asleep. I do not mean this disparagingly. I just mean they are working hard, raising kids, paying bills, not looking for conspiracies and they have "gilt edged" media explaining it all to them. I'm not saying the media are in on it. Mostly it is above the media.
Our media in Ireland is ineffectual. Listen to Matt Cooper or Pat Kenny anyday. There is very little investigative journalism. Primetime is the best of all. They have "done the state some service" . But Matt just gets 2 guys form opposing sides on and has a chat. One says black is white and the other says white is black and Matt tries not to offend anyone. Listen to it. If he was any good he'd find out the truth on an issue and call somebody on air on it. I mean pull their knickers down around their ankles and show the truth to the listeners. But I digress.

And this automatically means things are hidden?


I'll tell you what give me five point (not paragraphs please) as to why 911 was a conspiracy.

bonkey

moviesrme wrote: »

How can I reconcile this apparent paradox. Start with the facts. They did it and then ask how.

Without meaning to come across as overly pedantic...

"They did it" is a conclusion, not a fact. Its also a very vague conclusion, because there is no real definition of who "they" are or what "it" is.

Even starting with the facts is problematic, in that not everyone will agree that the facts include that three planes impacted three seperate buildings, and that a fourth plane crashed near Shanksville.

The facts we can almost-certainly agree on is that there were events of an unspecified nature which occurred at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center complex, and near Shanksville.

For almost every single "fact" in addition to that, there will be someone willing to question or challenge it. Any combination of the four alleged plane crashes were or were not actually plane crashes. NORAD did or did not stand down. Response times were or were not unusually slow. Explosives were or were not used.

So I would agree, entirely, that we need to start with the facts....in that the absolute first thing we need to do is determine what we can accept and agree on as fact, and what not.

"They did it" is, however, only a fact in the sense that it is vague enough that we would agree that someone did something - that the events did not just happen by accident.

Penn

How can I reconcile this apparent paradox. Start with the facts. They did it and then ask how.

But then surely you will be biased in your investigation? You will be looking for things to help prove they did it, without just simply looking at the proof.

You bring up an example of being accused of being a paedophile. Would you like it if the detectives investigating your case believed you did it, and only looked for evidence which which can be used against you? They have to look at everything. if you say you were with someone else, they have to check that out. If you say you were in a certain location, they have to check that out.

"They did it and then ask how" will do nothing but let you find evidence to back up your biased opinion. Look at all the facts, then decide who did it. If you still believe that 'they' did it after that, at least its your unbiased opinion then

moviesrme

To Meglome.

Thanks for the considered response. I'm glad you started it with an open mind. The first thing is I would ask you to watch: http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/911-blueprint-truth

All my stuff comes from there. Incidentially, if this doc is proved illegitimate I revert to my previous state of mind viz. interested but unconvinced re 911.

A few points:

1. Dave VonKleists analysis of Pentagon in "In plane sight" demonstrates to me just by level of damage and lack of debris that a plane did not hit it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2329092821935314404

2. The fall of WTC7 was freefall for a good setion of the fall and uniformly dropping. Not hit by a plane, very little damage to building, a few fires, unprecedented for a fire to cause a fall in such a building and yet it fell.

3. No "pancakes" at base of tower 1 or 2. The whole theory of NIST is fire buckled steel causing a floor to dislodge high up in a tower. It falls hits next floor, overloads it etc. so you should have 110 pancakes at base wrapped around a core of steel. No pancakes seen at all in fact very little debris right at base therfore NIST theory false

4. Core fell aswell ( of towers) . Even if NIST pancakes theory was right why would the core fall. Also close to freefall speed of descent. Surely lower undamaged tower section would offer some resistance slowing down descent?

2, 3 & 4 are in support of explosive demolition therefore conspiaracy.

5. BBC report WTC7 as having fell when it's in the picture behind the reporter as shes saynig it. Goes to media being fed a line/ foreknowledge of a collapse of WTC 7 (which at that point in history was unprecedented by fire alone and should have been unexpected!)

The list goes on.

moviesrme

To Bonkey. I agree I was sloppy and anyone reading would laugh at my statement.
I was coming out of having watched Richard Gages "blueprint" and I was trying to argue it was possible for it to be a coverup viz. you could keep a lid on it even with many involved.
So I was (and still am) convinced it was a coverup and was starting with that as a fact to then proceed to argue how they could cover it up. Maybe that wasn't clear.

moviesrme

To meglome;

If there is no independent investigative reporting by the media into an issue you will be relying on what a vested interest says to argue a case. Now it is interesting and lots of the time vested interests say plainly what they want/ think so there would be no problem in that case. But take the case of a person accused of murder and you get him on and he says he's innocent and you get a garda on and he says hes guilty. If you could independently establish the facts or at least as good a version as you can you can question him otherwise you are trying to trip him up on something he says for example.
Investigative journalism costs money though. Matt Coopers approach doesn't.
So no it is not necessarily a case that things are hidden it's just a lot more likely.

Penn

I'm in a bit of a rush, so I'll be brief

moviesrme wrote: »

2. The fall of WTC7 was freefall for a good setion of the fall and uniformly dropping. Not hit by a plane, very little damage to building, a few fires, unprecedented for a fire to cause a fall in such a building and yet it fell.

Due to the structural design of WTC7, the fires, which had been burning for several hours, weakened key steel members and caused WTC7 to fall. It began collapsing internally for the first few seconds, before the kink in the roof appeared. After that, too many steel members had been weakened/dislodged and the entire building began to collapse, but not at freefall speed. Taking into consideration that we cannot see the entire building and the fact it collapsed internally first, it is relatively impossible to determine the speed at which it fell.

moviesrme wrote: »

3. No "pancakes" at base of tower 1 or 2. The whole theory of NIST is fire buckled steel causing a floor to dislodge high up in a tower. It falls hits next floor, overloads it etc. so you should have 110 pancakes at base wrapped around a core of steel. No pancakes seen at all in fact very little debris right at base therfore NIST theory false

Do you think that if a house of cards collapses, they all fall in a neat little order? The outer shell of the building which was hit by the planes, and the inner structural core which was also most likely severely damaged, was weakened by the impact and subsequent fires. It isn't a case of the floors collapsing. The beams carrying the floor loads would only be passing this load to the inner and outer structure, as well as tying the two together and forming a frame.

If some of these collapse, firstly, it would not cause the entire floor at that level to collapse uniformally, as damage was not equal on all sides, secondly, the buckling would not cause the building to collapse straight down. The tower which was hit nearer the corner, when it collapsed, it is easy to see the top of the building above the impact collapsing towards the hit corner, showing that that is where the cause of collapse happened and where the structure has been most damaged. The result of the top collapsing impacted the rest of the building, causing overloading and damage from the top of the structure impacting it.

moviesrme wrote: »

4. Core fell aswell ( of towers) . Even if NIST pancakes theory was right why would the core fall. Also close to freefall speed of descent. Surely lower undamaged tower section would offer some resistance slowing down descent?

2, 3 & 4 are in support of explosive demolition therefore conspiaracy.

The core fell due to damage from the planes destroying the frame. If two columns are lets say 4 metres apart, and have a beam connecting them in the middle, if the beam is removed, the columns may buckle in the middle, or separate at the top etc.

The lower section would only provide more resistance provided the same weight was acting upon it. But with each floor that collapsed, more weight was coming down on it.

Plus, as with WTC7, due to the rising dust and debris, we cannot see the bottom of the tower.

moviesrme wrote: »

5. BBC report WTC7 as having fell when it's in the picture behind the reporter as shes saynig it. Goes to media being fed a line/ foreknowledge of a collapse of WTC 7 (which at that point in history was unprecedented by fire alone and should have been unexpected!)

The list goes on.

Again, this goes back to having so many people involved in the conspiracy and nobody coming forward with evidence saying they were part of it. This wasn't even the American media, it was the BBC. Plus, if they managed to organise such a vast conspiracy with so many people involved, surely they could easily make sure that the media doesn't announce the collapse of a building they plan to destroy while it is still in picture. What happened was a simple mistake, by a news team who got unconfirmed reports. Not to mention that it is the BBC news. The British news. They would not be as familiar with the New York skyline as most and would be harder for them to identify WTC7 at a distance. And this was 9/11. Between the panic, the shock, you don't think its possible for the media to make mistakes?

bonkey

To Bonkey. I agree I was sloppy and anyone reading would laugh at my statement.
I was coming out of having watched Richard Gages "blueprint" and I was trying to argue it was possible for it to be a coverup viz. you could keep a lid on it even with many involved.
So I was (and still am) convinced it was a coverup and was starting with that as a fact to then proceed to argue how they could cover it up. Maybe that wasn't clear.

It was somewhat clear.

What I was trying to highlight is that your conviction is an assumption or conclusion, not a fact. It is a distinction that I think needs to be made. We should be clear what are facts, and what are not. When something is not fact, then it is either asssumed or concluded to be correct, and the basis on which that assumption or conclusion is reached can be critical.

Its not a question of whether or not I agree with the conclusions reached, nor even the assumptions made. I believe it is incumbent on anyone, on any side in discussions of this nature, to be accurate. All too often, we've seen information misportrayed, misinterpreted or just plain mis-understood. By sacrificing accuracy in the presentation of information, all we do is increase the odds of that happening.

I agree entirely with the notion that we should start with the facts and work from there.

I accept the validity of testing an assumption against the facts...but we can only do that once we have the facts. Thus, testing an assumption - "they did it" - is not really a starting point.

Points 2 to 5 points to Meglome are interesting to me, in that they're statements of fact that I think we can broadly agree on, although I'd disagree with the interpretation or conclusions you may have drawn from them. If I can find time today, I'll write a response to them.

Point 1, I'll pass on (for now, at least).

moviesrme

To Bonkey: Yes I accept that facts and conclusions are as you describe them and that I mixed them and that it can be confusing. I will try to be more accurate.



Paddyirishman85: Taking into consideration that we cannot see the entire building and the fact it collapsed internally first, it is relatively impossible to determine the speed at which it fell.

I think we can determine speed of collapse. Check out this elegant analysis by Architest & engineers for 911:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw

I don't know anything about an internal collapse of wtc7 first. I try to limit myself to more visual proofs as how can I have any confidence in statements generally. He said she said etc.

I don't want to get to much into the technical details of structural members etc. because I no nothing about it. I am out of my depth. All I am saying is I watched Gages documentary and I basically agree with everytihng he says. I like the approach he takes. Start with the facts, build a case and arrive at a conclusion. All he is calling for is a thorough investigation. He is not saying Bush did it or whatever.

bonkey

2. The fall of WTC7 was freefall for a good setion of the fall and uniformly dropping. Not hit by a plane, very little damage to building, a few fires, unprecedented for a fire to cause a fall in such a building and yet it fell.

Part of the visible collapse was, indeed, at more-or-less freefall speeds. From memory, it corresponds more-or-less exactly to what one would expect if and when the support structure above the ConEd substation collapsed - 7 stories worth of "free space".

As for the rest of the visible collapse - quite a lot of it was also faster than one might expect.

It is, however, possible that the internal structure had mostly collapsed, leaving a mostly-hollow shell, which then collapsed. From this perspective, we would expect to see far less resistance as the structure collapsed, again leading to a faster visible collapse.

So, I would argue that the speed of the collapse is not necessarily inconsistent with the notion of collapse from structural failure.

3. No "pancakes" at base of tower 1 or 2. The whole theory of NIST is fire buckled steel causing a floor to dislodge high up in a tower. It falls hits next floor, overloads it etc. so you should have 110 pancakes at base wrapped around a core of steel. No pancakes seen at all in fact very little debris right at base therfore NIST theory false

4. Core fell aswell ( of towers) . Even if NIST pancakes theory was right why would the core fall. Also close to freefall speed of descent. Surely lower undamaged tower section would offer some resistance slowing down descent?

These two points both revolve around the cores of WTC 1 and 2. It is important to understand how the core was built. It was formed from sections of steel which were (relatively) lightly connected. The core sections relied on the floors to "weigh" them down. The outer "tube" then provided the lateral stability. As the building collapsed, the massive forces in play pulled the core apart, section by section, just as the floors and outer curtain were pulled apart.

Also - the building did offer some resistance. We can see clearly from collapse that freefalling debris (i.e. debris ejected outside the footprint of the building) fell faster than the material falling onto the lower floors. That this was "close to" freefall is also not all that surprising - the amount of resistance offered by the building was comparatively small to the dynamic forces at play.

We also have evidence that in at least the case of the north tower, the lowest part of the core did remain standing after the main collapse had finished. Google "WTC Spire" for any number of links.

2, 3 & 4 are in support of explosive demolition

Are they?

Explosive demolition would result in freefall only if it took out the supports at every floor. If it didn't do this, then the resistance from all the floors where supports were not taken out would be the same as from a collapse in the absence of explosive demolition.

I'm not aware of any analysis showing that explosive demolition results (in some or all cases) in freefall collapse. I'd be interested in seeing such analysis if it does exist.

We should also note that explosive demolition has other characteristics which are demonstrably not present.

There is no airborne shock-wave. There is no ground-based seismic signature. The absence of such tell-tale "signatures" is one of the reasons that thermite (in various forms) has been suggested as the agent of demolition. This, however, is an admission that the collapses are not comparable to explosive demolition, given that thermite is not explosive, nor is it known to be used for demolition work.

If we assume explosive demolition, we're left with problems of features that are inconsistent with explosive demolition. If we assume something exotic like thermite-based demolition, we're left with a lack of something to compare it to.

In effect, we're left with a situation that we can only say "the collapse of these buildings doesn't quite match anything we've seen before". This description is as accurate for the official findings for the collapse as it is for any other explanation.

5. BBC report WTC7 as having fell when it's in the picture behind the reporter as shes saynig it. Goes to media being fed a line/ foreknowledge of a collapse of WTC 7 (which at that point in history was unprecedented by fire alone and should have been unexpected!)

There was foreknowledge - of a sort - of a collapse of WTC7. It was reported for several hours before the collapse that the building was expected to collapse from the condition that it was in.

That someone reported its collapse before the event is not inconsistent with the general confused reporting on the day, where news stations reported what was told to them, worrying about clearing up the inaccuracies, misreporting etc. as better and clearer information came in.

To summarise - it may be correct to say that these four points of information are consistent with a conspiracy. It is at least equally correct to say that they are also consistent with the notion that planes were hijacked and flown into the two towers, which caused them to fail...and that WTC 7 subsequently failed due to a combination of the fires which were started by the collapse of the towers and a previously-unidentified design flaw.

bonkey

moviesrme wrote: »

All he is calling for is a thorough investigation.

There was a thorough investigation. Gage is saying is that he disagrees with the findings of this, and wants another one because of that.

The idea of an "independant investigation" has been a persistent canard in the arguments of those arguing inconsitencies. The definition of what would constitute an independant investigation is, however, sadly lacking.

It also overlooks the indepedant investigations that were carried out - by the insurance companies.

moviesrme

Congratulations Bonkey. You have succeed in shifting my level of certainty a bit back to uncertain again. I did not think there were any even halfway plausible explanations on the points I raised. We can go back and forth but as I said my source is Gages doc and I have no expertise to offer.

When I look at the two sides and the arguments I come down still decidedly on the conspiracy side. But I grant you this: my side really has no better proof than that which Gage puts forth and at this stage the official side is well known in all aspects and I have to admit there is still some doubt and as such it will continue to divide people a la JFK forever.

That being said I think we should probably just move on with our lives. See you out there!

Penn

moviesrme wrote: »

I don't know anything about an internal collapse of wtc7 first. I try to limit myself to more visual proofs as how can I have any confidence in statements generally. He said she said etc.

I don't want to get to much into the technical details of structural members etc. because I no nothing about it. I am out of my depth. All I am saying is I watched Gages documentary and I basically agree with everytihng he says. I like the approach he takes. Start with the facts, build a case and arrive at a conclusion. All he is calling for is a thorough investigation. He is not saying Bush did it or whatever.

I know you can't see a visual collapse per se, but the kink in the roof could only appear if the steel members supporting that area collapsed, which would be an internal collapse. With no fires and probably no structural damage directly below the roof, it is most likely that the members below the roof collapsed due to the members below them collapsing. In essence, the kink in the roof was probably caused by the steel columns and beams supporting it being dragged down by the floors below.

I think there were also a few puffs of smoke and debris coming out from windows before the kink appeared. This would be explained by the floors internally collapsing, and the pressure of floors falling onto floors breaking the windows and expelling the dust and debris.

But I agree, this is basically my own assumptions as a structural engineer. I'm nowhere near as qualified as Richard Gage or others, but this is just the most likely explanation to me.

moviesrme

To paddyirishman85:
Thank you for the nice reply. I mean that. The tone is good. Sometimes these discussions can be quite tetchy and quite unenjoyable for it.

To your substantive point: You may well be correct. I really don't know.

I just find Gage very compelling. You know that feeling when you just engage with a mind and can almost tell what he's going to say next because you're on the same wavelength. I'm thinking "Ah but what about..." and he answers it a few seconds later. It's only my view though and it may not be correct.

Penn

moviesrme wrote: »

To paddyirishman85:
Thank you for the nice reply. I mean that. The tone is good. Sometimes these discussions can be quite tetchy and quite unenjoyable for it.

To your substantive point: You may well be correct. I really don't know.

I just find Gage very compelling. You know that feeling when you just engage with a mind and can almost tell what he's going to say next because you're on the same wavelength. I'm thinking "Ah but what about..." and he answers it a few seconds later. It's only my view though and it may not be correct.

I know what you mean. When I first saw Loose Change, it blew my mind. I couldn't believe that the evidence was so clear and obvious. Yet when I started looking up more evidence and learnt more about various topics, I changed my mind. It was just that Loose Change was so compelling to watch that I believed it.

In a way, its all irrelevant. So many people believe so many things. If you're happy in your beliefs, it doesn't matter what your beliefs are. All that matters is that you're happy.

meglome

Documentary's that tell me events are connected without explaining how they are connected and ones that tell me there can be only one interpretation of events when clearly there can be others make me suspicious of their motives. This is how I felt about loose change. It made some good points which made me wonder so I decided to go and check. The more I checked the more I found wrong with it.

I was shocked about 911 just like everyone else was. But it was a little too easy to say these planes couldn't have caused the buildings to collapse. Personally I had no frame of reference and I was fairly sure that most other people didn't either. So how could they say it couldn't have happened as was officially reported.

So I'd break down my views of 911 into these categories...

• Fits the official accounts. 70%
• Not enough information to really draw a conclusion. 20%
• Could be suspicious but lacks further info. 10%

So while I can't rule out some conspiracy there just isn't really evidence of one and given eight years have passed I think the odds of a big conspiracy here are pretty small.

moviesrme

I like the way meglome has given a breakdown of his state of mind on 911. I would be more or less the opposite:

Conspiracy: 70%
Confused: 20%
Official: 10%

Now, I'd like to try a little exercise. Take for example the "molten metal" assertion of Gage. I think if this is the case then it pretty much blows the case wide open. How could you have it present there with only fire?

Gages' case:
(1) He's an architect of 20 years standing and believes it to be so. In his documentary at one point he almost breaks down and cries. He believes it.
(2) Leslie Robertson (original designer of exterior tube of towers) say he saw the molten metal at the site of the wtc. Mark Loiseaux (demolition expert) says he saw the molten metal at all 3 wtc sites. A fireman spoke of seeing it at the wtc. He described it as "like being in a foundry".
(3) Video evidence of molten metal dripping from one corner of one tower.
(4) NASA thermal pictures of the site show surface temps which are consistent with the kind of temps. necessary for molten metal.
(5) Video evidence of solidified pools of a rusting substance and "meteorites" at the wtc sites. The "meteorites" were a solidified conglomeration of steel/concrete and whatever else.

Gage does mention FEMA and NIST flat out deny the presence of molten metal at the wtc sites. He shows a clip of a reporter in a media meet putting the case for the presence of molten metal to the NIST guy. NIST just denied it. It was an interesting exchange. I did not believe the NIST guy.
GAGE also mentions the molten metal was not aluminium as it appears silvery when molten and does not rust when it is set. So it was not the plane or cladding aluminium.

That's all I can think of at present. ie. On this point I have nothing else to base my opinion on.
To me weighing both sides I agree heavily with Gage.

Now I am going to go off and see if I can debunk this aspect of the documentary. You can jump in or just wait for me to come back and judge the sincerity of my attempt.

Penn

moviesrme wrote: »

I like the way meglome has given a breakdown of his state of mind on 911. I would be more or less the opposite:

Conspiracy: 70%
Confused: 20%
Official: 10%

Now, I'd like to try a little exercise. Take for example the "molten metal" assertion of Gage. I think if this is the case then it pretty much blows the case wide open. How could you have it present there with only fire?

Gages' case:
(1) He's an architect of 20 years standing and believes it to be so. In his documentary at one point he almost breaks down and cries. He believes it.
(2) Leslie Robertson (original designer of exterior tube of towers) say he saw the molten metal at the site of the wtc. Mark Loiseaux (demolition expert) says he saw the molten metal at all 3 wtc sites. A fireman spoke of seeing it at the wtc. He described it as "like being in a foundry".
(3) Video evidence of molten metal dripping from one corner of one tower.
(4) NASA thermal pictures of the site show surface temps which are consistent with the kind of temps. necessary for molten metal.
(5) Video evidence of solidified pools of a rusting substance and "meteorites" at the wtc sites. The "meteorites" were a solidified conglomeration of steel/concrete and whatever else.

Gage does mention FEMA and NIST flat out deny the presence of molten metal at the wtc sites. He shows a clip of a reporter in a media meet putting the case for the presence of molten metal to the NIST guy. NIST just denied it. It was an interesting exchange. I did not believe the NIST guy.
GAGE also mentions the molten metal was not aluminium as it appears silvery when molten and does not rust when it is set. So it was not the plane or cladding aluminium.

That's all I can think of at present. ie. On this point I have nothing else to base my opinion on.
To me weighing both sides I agree heavily with Gage.

Now I am going to go off and see if I can debunk this aspect of the documentary. You can jump in or just wait for me to come back and judge the sincerity of my attempt.

NIST have never denied molten metal at WTC

"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

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

moviesrme

To paddyirishman85:
yes, I accept what you say fully. I was just about to post the exact link you posted from "debunking 911". I have just finished reading it. A lot of it is bitching but the section from Stephen D. Chastain managed not only to cause doubt in me but to convince me Chastain is probably correct. So I scrub the dripping molten steel from my previous post as solidly debunked. I mean the video/ photos of it dripping from the windows prior to collapse.

moviesrme

Actually points 1, 2, 3 are at this point effictively debunked as all the later "molten steel" could have been this aluninium oxide mixed stuff. The whole building was clad with aluminium (I think from memory) so there was plenty there. I say in this case sufficient doubt exists to render the points moot and therefore not useful in any proof.

At this point after 1 hour what appeared very solid now appears far less so. Just shows how deceptive this stuff can be.

Penn

The debunking911.com site is very good, and for most parts they provide links as to where they got their information, for double checking. A lot of it can be bitchy though, particularly with regards to Loose Change and Alex Jones. But their evidence speaks for itself.

With pretty much everything, both sides can put up very good arguments, deliver their points strongly and make you believe exactly what they are saying. Only thing you can do is look solely at the facts and decide for yourself.

Happy hunting

moviesrme

Yeah, but you know what, in regards to Alex Jones I don't really blame them. He comes across as boorish and deserves the same back I suppose.

I am feeling somewhat sheepish at this point. Rest assured I do not go off half cocked in my life decisions generally. I like to weigh things carefully. My interest in 911 is of a passtime nature so less rigour is applied and I think it's no harm at all to have someone change their mind on one of these threads. Usually the opposite is the case. Further entrenchment etc.
I place great faith in facts and my own opinion once I've made a decision but you've got to be able to accept new information.

bonkey

Actually...that whole "flow from the window" is one of the things that I think NIST got wrong - at least partially.

Have a look at this.

meglome

moviesrme wrote: »

Yeah, but you know what, in regards to Alex Jones I don't really blame them. He comes across as boorish and deserves the same back I suppose.

I am feeling somewhat sheepish at this point. Rest assured I do not go off half cocked in my life decisions generally. I like to weigh things carefully. My interest in 911 is of a passtime nature so less rigour is applied and I think it's no harm at all to have someone change their mind on one of these threads. Usually the opposite is the case. Further entrenchment etc.
I place great faith in facts and my own opinion once I've made a decision but you've got to be able to accept new information.

You know this is the big problem with the whole 911 debate, there are just so many sensationalist sites claiming to know the 'truth'. But when you step back and look at the minute details you keep coming back to the official reports being the most accurate. I mean if these sites are so sure of their 'truth' then why don't they have any balance, why do they misrepresent so many things, why do they misquote so many people, why are they so selective on their use of photographs, why do they connect events without ever actually being able to explain why they are connected, why do they pretend they have no agenda while at the same time making money off the whole thing. I could go on.

It's just too simple to say government bad, CT sites good. Governments are made up of thousands of ordinary people, who live ordinary lives just like the rest of us. The assumption that these people are somehow monsters that will cover up mass murder is being extremely disingenuous to these people, to say the least.

moviesrme let me make a prediction here. Each time you put forward conspiracy information you've read out there in dinterweb someone in here will be able to show you logically and using evidence that the reality just isn't the way the CT sites choose to portray it. This is no reflection on you personally, just on the level of bull**** out there. And honestly you seem to be open to listening to evidence and logic even if it doesn't fit with the views you currently hold, which IMO a real sceptic should be able to do.

An Fear Aniar

The one thing that would make me think it was not an inside job is that it would have been too risky, too elaborate. They could have got a 10 or 12 man team to plant a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, or a truck load of high explosives with similar effect.

This hypothesis, with the airplanes would require hundreds of people to be in on it - to control the airspace, secretly plant explosives in the buildings, handle the fire service, the police....

.

meglome

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The one thing that would make me think it was not an inside job is that it would have been too risky, too elaborate. They could have got a 10 or 12 man team to plant a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, or a truck load of high explosives with similar effect.

This hypothesis, with the airplanes would require hundreds of people to be in on it - to control the airspace, secretly plant explosives in the buildings, handle the fire service, the police....

My guess, when you add all the responders to the scenes, all the investigators etc you're talking in the thousands.

uprising

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The one thing that would make me think it was not an inside job is that it would have been too risky, too elaborate. They could have got a 10 or 12 man team to plant a dirty bomb or chemical weapon, or a truck load of high explosives with similar effect.

This hypothesis, with the airplanes would require hundreds of people to be in on it - to control the airspace, secretly plant explosives in the buildings, handle the fire service, the police....

.

Nobody controlled the airspace, these planes were watched, the first plane shouldn't have made it to WTC,

The members of the police and fire services have repeatedly said there were bombs in the building, most first responders are dying now from the crap in the air at ground zero, they face financial ruin trying to stay alive, another cover-up.
I think you could place the number of complicit people in the millions, that include's everybody who believes the official version yet observe the irregularities without question.

meglome

uprising wrote: »

Nobody controlled the airspace, these planes were watched, the first plane shouldn't have made it to WTC,

The members of the police and fire services have repeatedly said there were bombs in the building, most first responders are dying now from the crap in the air at ground zero, they face financial ruin trying to stay alive, another cover-up.
I think you could place the number of complicit people in the millions, that include's everybody who believes the official version yet observe the irregularities without question.

Just some general observations...

The planes had their transponders turned off which would have made them much harder to notice and track. There were over 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US at that time.

Some people including police and fire-fighters said that they heard explosions. An explosion could be a burning photocopier blowing up, it could be lot's of things in a huge burning building, it's a big leap from there to bombs. Maybe you can explain how these 'bombs' didn't go off from the fire or planes crashing in? Why weren't the control cables cut?

I'm all for the truth, I'm a very truthful person and yet you're suggesting I'm complicit in something because I don't agree with you. See I like things like fact if I want fantasy I read a book.

Captain Furball

meglome wrote: »

Just some general observations...
I'm all for the truth, I'm a very truthful person and yet you're suggesting I'm complicit in something because I don't agree with you. See I like things like fact if I want fantasy I read a book.

If you had facts it wouldn't be a conspiracy,Hence dare I say the conspiracy....

The planes had their transponders turned off which would have made them much harder to notice and track. There were over 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US at that time.

How many aircraft in that area? And how do radars work?

uprising

meglome wrote: »

Just some general observations...

The planes had their transponders turned off which would have made them much harder to notice and track. There were over 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US at that time.

Some people including police and fire-fighters said that they heard explosions. An explosion could be a burning photocopier blowing up, it could be lot's of things in a huge burning building, it's a big leap from there to bombs. Maybe you can explain how these 'bombs' didn't go off from the fire or planes crashing in? Why weren't the control cables cut?

I'm all for the truth, I'm a very truthful person and yet you're suggesting I'm complicit in something because I don't agree with you. See I like things like fact if I want fantasy I read a book.

They knew the planes were hijacked, nothing was done, no intercepters sent, airforce stand down, well documented click, do attacking aircraft usually have their transponders turned on?, why spend so much on defence when an attacking aircraft simply has to turn off it's transponder?.
NYPD and FDNY both said there were explosions in the lobby, and in the building, and bum,bum,bum,bum,bum,bum as the towers collapsed.
Only 3 steel structured buildings ever freefell from fire, all in NY on the same day, you want fantasy go buy 9/11 commission.

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

If you had facts it wouldn't be a conspiracy,Hence dare I say the conspiracy....

And yet you're suggesting that people were complicit in murder.

Captain Furball wrote: »

I
And how do radars work? How many aircraft in that area?

Generally speaking yes. I'm guessing I wouldn't be too far off the mark to say the skies were fairly crowded over the likes of New York, Boston and Washington on 911. Aren't they over most big cities at busy times?

meglome

uprising wrote: »

They knew the planes were hijacked, nothing was done, no intercepters sent, airforce stand down, well documented click, do attacking aircraft usually have their transponders turned on?, why spend so much on defence when an attacking aircraft simply has to turn off it's transponder?.

They did send interceptors and there was no stand down. I'm sure Bonkey will happily supply the details as he has done previously. I don't have info here at the moment.

The hijackers turned the planes transponders off as a way to make it harder to spot them.

You generally spend your defence money on prevention of attack from outside. NORAD was created to fight off an attack by the Soviets not to stop four passenger planes crashing into buildings. Do you think that's what defence systems are set up to do?

uprising wrote: »

NYPD and FDNY both said there were explosions in the lobby, and in the building, and bum,bum,bum,bum,bum,bum as the towers collapsed.

Why if these were bombs in the lobby would the collapses of the two towers start exactly at the points the planes hit and not in the lobby? Do you have any idea how controlled demolition actually works? (if that's what you're suggesting). And didn't you just right above say that these were bombs but now you're saying explosions.

uprising wrote: »

Only 3 steel structured buildings ever freefell from fire, all in NY on the same day, you want fantasy go buy 9/11 commission.

Isn't it strange that when the towers fell the debris was falling ahead of the collapse? Wouldn't that be impossible if the buildings actually fell at free-fall speeds?

Oh and one other thing these are not the only steel framed building to collapse from just a fire. And very similarly designed buildings, with similar flaws, collapsing in similar ways, shouldn't really be a shock at the end of the day.