| Author |
Message |
    
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1989
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:54 am: | 
|
I completely understand that you find my suggestion hard or impossible to accept, but you have no reason to bring insults into this.
i dont find it hard to accept. there is nothing to accept. i wasnt bringing insults into this. as an american i find you suggesting this idiocy to be the insulting part. all of your sources are web pages. the web is notoriously loose on facts and full of like minded conspiracy lunatics.. this whole conspiracy theory is for people with way too much time on their hands. It is a childish and insulting waste of energy.
whats next for you? a discussion of ZOG or the bohemian grove meetings? |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7094
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
 |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13872
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
These conspiracy theories are not wrong because of the theorists' politics. They're wrong because they're wrong.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
that was very deep. thanks for sharing. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3212
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
Yes, Lib, the web is full of nonsense. So is every other form of media. Between that and your reflexive dismissal of something difficult to accept, your case against me is truly iron-clad. Well done.
Joel, I'm sorry but did you say "no vertical beams"? Just to back up a sec, we're talking about skyscrapers. The trusses, then, were held above the earth by, what? Menacing looks? Anyway, the truss theory still does not explain the extremely vertical fall of the buildings. The fires in the towers were more toward one corner or side of each building, as was, obviously the immediate structural damage from the collisions. The weakening of ANY structural element -- trusses, columns, beams, whatever -- would have been uneven laterally. The buildings should fallen OVER to a fair degree, not straight down. Put another way, the collapses followed the path of MOST resistance.
The very last survivor pulled from the rubble, William Rodriguez, was a janitor at the WTC. From the NY Mag article:
On 9/11, William was late. Instead of mopping the stairwells on the 110th floor, where he almost certainly would have died, he was chatting with the maintenance crew on level B-1 in the basement. “I heard this massive explosion below, on level B-2 or 3. I saw this guy come up the stairs. The skin on his arms was peeled away . . . hanging. Then I heard another explosion, from above. That was the first plane, hitting the building.”
In possession of one of the few master keys in the building, William led firemen up the stairwells. He was responsible for getting at least a dozen people out of the towers. Trying to escape as the North Tower fell, he found himself beneath a half-buried fire engine.
Also, to repeat the obvious, nothing hit WTC 7. |
musicme
Citizen
Username: Musicme
Post Number: 1659
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Hey notes:
http://www.geocities.com/killtown/ |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11327
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
The Twin Towers had large open areas without interior columns. Because of impact damage and fire weakening the floor decking floors began to collapse onto each other. As each floor collapsed the weight carried by the lower floor increased causing a domino effect according to the engineering analysis and computer simulations. A few days after 911 if you visited the site you could clearly see the floors collapsed onto each other, sort of like a 110 layer turkey club sandwich.
Notes, this isn't like you. You are normally pretty analytical about things. What started you off on the conspiracy theroy road? A book? An active dislike and distrust for Bush?
As I said earlier, if this was planned by the administration, Bush would have reacted differently. He would charged into New York on his white charger, playing the hero and savior, not flown around the country for hours being protected by a squadron of fighters. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2001
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Yes, Lib, the web is full of nonsense. So is every other form of media. Between that and your reflexive dismissal of something difficult to accept, your case against me is truly iron-clad. Well done.
1." the media lies to us!"
2. "its not that it isnt true, its that you cant accept the truth cause its too much for you to accept."
classic rallying cries of the conspiracy addled, paranoid, adolescent mind
you are the one with truth acceptance issues. you cant deal with the fact that such incredible devastation could be so easily created by so few. do some real research other than reading some web sites created by the tin foil hat crowd.
now tell me all about ZOG, or how the owl burning ritual is actually a call to satan.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
"...not flown around the country for hours being protected by a squadron of fighters."
Yeah that was pretty cowardly of him. What a pussy our president is. A lame-••• draft-dodging coke-sniffing alcoholic pussy. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2943
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
If the towers were taken out from the bottom, they would more likely have fallen over than if they were taken down from the top. When professionals take down a building, they collapse it in stages, usually from the top down.
And I doubt any bomb exploding in the basement of the towers would have been able to cause them to collapse from the top down.
I do believe there is information about 9/11 that we will never know. But I agree that GWB's reaction was too unstaged for him to have been in the loop. Were US official complicit? I'd hate to think they were, but I won't completely discount the possibility. I have not yet seen proof that they were. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2002
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:14 pm: |
|
our government couldnt keep the iran contra thing quiet, there is no way on gods green earth that something of this magnitude could be kept secret. its just adolescent angst mongering to think otherwise. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4820
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:36 pm: |
|
The video of the south tower collapsing very clearly shows the top 20 or so stories collapsing first from one corner, then straight down. You can see the top part of the building fold over slightly. The initial point of the collapse was where the damage from the planes were, not the basement. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3213
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Chris P, my facts are straight. Are you certain yours are? From the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (www.wpi.edu) - Sisson and Biederman are materials science professors:
There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. ... From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.
Keep in mind that the towers were constructed with a safety ratio allowing them to withstand 5 times of their rated capacity.
Also, I'll say it again: there were no major fires in WTC 7, and certainly no jet fuel. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2004
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
no fires were needed as i have already explained. the explanation offered doesnt fit into the sick little conspiracy theory so it is ignored. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4262
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Well, let's say it again. The foundation of WTC 7 was compromised when the main towers collapsed.
Let's say it again. Steel loses its strength long before it reaches its melting point.
Let's ask for the first time - were the sprinkler systems designed to handle the impact of a large airplane which tore out pipes and supports upon impact?
Let's say it again. Several thousand gallons of jet fuel is not an ordinary office fire. An ordinary office fire would be a toxic smudgepot compared to what we saw on 9/11. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 831
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Say it all you want, tjohn. Some people are not listening, and never will.
Their minds are made up, and to hell with the facts. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4822
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
notehead, really. It wasn't necessary for the steel to actually melt into a puddle. It softened and weakened enough so that it couldn't support the weight.
Picture a block of swiss cheese that you've stuck in the freezer. Hard as a rock, so hard you can stand on it. Let it sit on the counter for an hour or two. It's still solid -- holds its shape, nobody would say it's melted; but stand on it and you'll squash it flat. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Wasn't there a tower in IIRC Madrid that burned for 22 hours. It never fell.
I think, most likely ex Saudi Air Force pilots were flying the 4 planes on 9-11.
Thats about the size of the conspiracy needed. |
Bailey
Citizen
Username: Baileymac
Post Number: 265
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
I actually designed some of the sprinkler systems in WTC, which were not part of the original construction, but were retrofitted later.
The sprinklers were designed for "light hazard" occupancy, typical of an office environment. Typically, an office sprinkler system is designed for a maximum fire area of 1500 square feet. A fire larger than that would overwhelm the sprinklers.
I think I read that the riser piping that fed the sprinklers was damaged on the plane's impact, so the sprinklers would have had no water supply in at least one of the buildings.
In any case, a flammable or combustible liquids fire would be more than a typical office system could handle. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 9:06 pm: |
|
RL,
You seriously need anger management...
I called you a p**y and got banned for two weeks and you were allowed to make that post?
Nope, no bias in these parts.
Forget about the conspiracy in WTC 7, MOL has their own left wing conspiracy going on right here....
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3216
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:51 am: |
|
No, Lib, I didn't ignore you, I answered you. I said that your comments about the "almost fluid" foundation have not been given credence by experts such as FEMA.
Regarding the fires in the main towers, most of the jet fuel would have been consumed in the fireballs resulting from the impacts.
Guys, I'm not basing my statements on the postulations of some kids in their bedrooms. I'm trying to make the same effort any of you would, and listen to people who are experts in their respective fields - people with doctorates and relevant experience in materials science, physics, and architecture. I know that solids soften before they melt. When I say the fires were insufficient to melt the columns, I am passing on the assessment of people much more knowledgeable than any of us. When I say that the collapse of the towers was insufficient to cause the collapse of WTC 7, the idea didn't originate with me, it is the conclusion of people who have the background and experience to make them worth listening to. And, other experts may disagree.
I know I'm not changing any minds here, but I felt like we should at least swat around the subject a bit in case anybody had come across some solid refutations of the sources I've already looked at. Instead, most of you are simply saying, "that's not what happened because it couldn't have happened that way, and you're offensive for even bringing it up." On MOL's better threads we generally try to go a little deeper. I don't see the point of continuing here, but I hope we can treat subjects that are a little less sensitive with a little more rationality.
By the way, David Copperfield didn't really make the Statue of Liberty disappear, even though it looked that way. |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7098
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:55 am: |
|
This thread is beyond stupid... |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4269
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
I'm with you Notehead. What impresses me most is that the pilots knew to crash into the Towers are precisely the location where the extra fuel and explosives had been prepositioned. If they hadn't done this with precision, the plot would have been exposed when the Towers exploded into flames on some floor far removed from the point of impact of the airplanes. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 832
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Notehead, I think you misunderstand the objections to your original post.
People are fed up with nonsensical conspiracy b.s. You can always find one or two 'experts' who will say whatever you want them to say. The courtrooms are full of them. When you 'pass on the assesments' of others, you are implicitly endorsing their harebrained platter, their nonsense.
|
Project 37
Citizen
Username: Project37
Post Number: 64
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Instead of wasting time with pointless conspiracy sites ( ), consider reading the in-depth scientific analysis written by the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) engineers that have began their research immediately after the event and made it their prime goal to understand what happened and how.
These are the scientists that not only had *full access* to the WTC area, but have spent the past few years collecting, researching, and analyzing all of the data directly from the site(s) in question. They're not random people speculating on bogus government conspiracies and attempting to spread their ridiculous fantasies from the comfort of their home. They're the ones that actually did the work.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
"NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition"
Also, perhaps of interest:
POPULAR MECHANICS: "Debunking the 9/11 Myth"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 835
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:05 pm: |
|
DAMMIT, PROJECT 37, HOW DARE YOU USE LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE AT A TIME LIKE THIS?? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3217
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:42 pm: |
|
I have already read much of the NIST data and the Popular Mechanics article, and a number of responses to it, but thanks P37. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3218
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Tjohn, I never said anything about prepositioned explosives or jet fuel! You know more about this than you've revealed previously. I'm calling the FBI right now. Folks, I think this issue is now closed, and we know what the "T" in tjohn stands for. |
Project 37
Citizen
Username: Project37
Post Number: 65
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
I have already read much of the NIST data and the Popular Mechanics article, and a number of responses to it, but thanks P37.
According to your original post, you claim that (emphasis added):
There was not nearly enough damage from debris or fires for it to collapse. Yet it fell straight down into its own footprint with the incredible precision of an expert demo job. Smoke plumes emerged from around the building right before it fell. Buildings with that type of construction NEVER collapse in that manner as a result of accidental damage or fire. It had to be deliberate, and if it was deliberate then it had to be planned. If it was planned, then the planners must have orchestrated the entire day's events.
How are you able to validate these notions with such authority?
You close by asking:
why did WTC 7 fall?
I'm curious as to how come the NIST report, which was unprecedented in its depth and rigorous scientific analysis of the evidence taken from the site, wasn't enough to answer your question, much less convince you that your initial theory was incorrect? |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 422
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
It fell upon the complete implementation of Plan 9 From Outer Space.
Everyone knows this.
And, the WTC was the first building(s) with that type of construction, anywhere near that size.
So, the spacewomen knew what they were doing.
jd |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2007
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
mmmmmm.......space women. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3220
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
P37, actually my initial theory was to fully accept the government's explanation for everything. It was only after coming across certain questions online that I decided to dig around a bit -- trying not to accept every conspiracy-oriented suggestion out there. One of the websites that impressed me the most is www.911research.wtc.net, by Jim Hoffman, and his discussion of the NIST report is very thorough, presented here. I think enough good points are raised about the NIST report to justify questioning its accuracy. If you or others do not, that's fine with me, and my fervent wish is that that the government has in fact been entirely honest with us. However, years of secrecy, dishonesty, and apparent disregard for most Americans by this administration have made me willing to consider that they might do something as evil as allow or even cause the events of 9/11.
I happily admit that the case for American complicity is hardly rock-solid. To me, the biggest question against the demolition theory (which nobody here has asked, surprisingly) is: if the buildings were actually demolished, why wasn't more effort made to prevent the collapses from looking so deliberate? I mean, even television news reporters at the time it happened remarked on how it looked just like the deliberate demolitions of other buildings that have been televised. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3221
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
The fine folks at PNAC published this document in 2000.
http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
On page 63...
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Gosh, that's ironic. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4277
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
I just heard that FDR not only knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, but was on battleship Kirishima in direct command of the Japanese carrier strike force (Kido Butai). |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 855
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Really? I heard it was the aircraft carrier Soryu. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3224
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Soryu saying it was his idea? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4278
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hiryu go again saying it was his idea. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 782
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 6:30 pm: |
|
I have searched for hours online looking for the answer to this thread...it's called gravity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=qcv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:e n-US:official&defl=en&q=define:gravity&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
man, the internet is cool. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9314
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:20 pm: |
|
this also explains why it didn't float into space |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 504
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
what? no Kaga and Akagi puns? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4279
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Nah, I thought I might be able to work Shokaku into something, but not the other three. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 2:30 am: |
|
 |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 429
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 7:40 am: |
|
Notehead's thoughts are for shokaku.
jd |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page