Interesting tidbit about 9/11...

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

I'm not proving anything, I just want to understand which of these theories you seem to ascribe to. First, it was that the government brought down the WTC, then you latched onto the Silverstein thing.

I cannot prove any 9/11 conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt because the very nature of a conspiracy doesn't allow it. There is no evidence the government could put forward that would put to rest all conspiracy theories about the events in question.

I just happen to believe that with a little fact-checking a logic we can rule out with a near 100% certainty that there was any foul play.

You have me confused with someone else or you are trolling to put words in my mouth.

If you lack comprehension, please leave the thread.

I don't get your theory on conspiracy. Conspiracy can be proved and discovered. It's happened several times in our history and in the history of the world.

However, no matter how many times it happens the masses still believe it won't happen again.

Sigh,

No, conspiracies can ONLY be proven true. Think about the multitude of conspiracies that exist regarding 9/11. No amount of evidence can prove to everyone that planes really did hit and destroy WTC 1, 2, and severely damage the Pentagon. For example, there is no way for the government to prove it DIDN'T launch a missile at the Pentagon or that it didn't know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and let them happen. That's impossible because there isn't one piece of discoverable evidence that exonerates them.

Okay, if that doesn't make sense, try this on for size. Imagine I believed everything in the world was fifteen and a half minutes old. The entire universe suddenly appeared 15.5 minutes ago, complete with all of us, our thoughts, our memories, and our livelihoods. Nothing you say to me forces me to give up my position because, by it's very nature, you cannot possibly prove me wrong.

Conspiracy theories are the same way.

Annnyway, I'd appreciate an answer or two to my other questions, though I won't hold my breath.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: jaredfs
Some of you are being very disrespectful to the victim's family members who keep demanding a real investigation. It's sickening to label people conspiracy theorists for simply asking questions.

The government's official explanation on building 7 is basically "we don't know how this happened, but it could have been because of some small fires".

Any real investigation would consider the possibility that there were bombs planted in building 7, by the terrorists or whoever. Instead, the government totally ignores this possibility.

Just like they are now ignoring the possibility that it was more than one lone scientist who sent anthrax out to senators that were against the patriot act.

But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

Did you even read what I wrote? Nearly 1/3 of the lower part of the building was missing.

Let me paint you a fucking picture:

http://truthandthedevil.com/up...s/2007/04/wtc7hit1.jpg

See the tens of millions of pounds of rubble hurtling towards the side of WTC 7? Guess what happened when concrete met building. Seriously. Guess.

Except it didn't fall with the other two towers. Maybe a delayed reaction eh?

SUMMARY: The building collapsed because it was severely damaged by WTC 1 falling. Subsequent fires weakend the structure further and it finally succumb at 5 pm. WTC 1 and 2 demonstrated the same thing -- they didn't collapse instantaneously, rather it took about 25 minutes.

What does a delayed reaction say about conspiracies or not?

Read my post above about WTC7

 

[jaredfs]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
100% incorrect. The "government's" explanation (along with everyone else's) is that WTC got reamed by the collapsing towers.

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. - Chapter 5, page 31 FEMA/Structural Engineering Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
100% incorrect. The "government's" explanation (along with everyone else's) is that WTC got reamed by the collapsing towers.

Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. - Chapter 5, page 31 FEMA/Structural Engineering Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers

Yes. Like I said above:

...Nearly 1/3 of the lower part of the building was missing.

Let me paint you a picture:

http://truthandthedevil.com/up...s/2007/04/wtc7hit1.jpg

See the tens of millions of pounds of rubble hurtling towards the side of WTC 7? Guess what happened when concrete met building. Seriously. Guess.

THERE IS NO FINAL "OFFICIAL" EXPLANATION, but the idea that the building was structurally unsound after getting hit by WTC1 rubble and then weakened by the fires is strongly supported.

At this point the official explanation isn't questioning the outline of why the building fell, it is questioning how much each component played a role in its collapse. The components:

large portion of lower building missing + load redistribution crippled + fires = building collapse.

Take a look at this too http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

Look at the smoke pouring out of the building. There were some big-time fires raging in there.

 

[jaredfs]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
the idea that the building was structurally unsound after getting hit by WTC1 rubble and then weakened by the fires is strongly supported.

"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"

Those are the words of the government's experts. They don't sound so sure to me.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


SUMMARY: The building collapsed because it was severely damaged by WTC 1 falling. Subsequent fires weakend the structure further and it finally succumb at 5 pm. WTC 1 and 2 demonstrated the same thing -- they didn't collapse instantaneously, rather it took about 25 minutes.

What does a delayed reaction say about conspiracies or not?

Read my post above about WTC7

I did...first you said the rubble caused it...then when someone added that wasn't only it you then now expand on your story.

I really don't think you know the facts and are only trying to piece this together now.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
the idea that the building was structurally unsound after getting hit by WTC1 rubble and then weakened by the fires is strongly supported.

"the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"

Those are the words of the government's experts. They don't sound so sure to me.

The government can't win with people like you. Either you blast them because they aren't willing to say for certain what happened until their investigation concludes or you blast them for being too hasty to reach a certain conclusion.

Please re-read Chapter 5. The whole thing. Read the Potential Collapse methods and you'll realize that what they're debating is not whether the combination of debris damage + fire + failed trusses brought the building down, but what ratios those aspects played in the building's collapse.

Your quote is disingenuous at best, it refers to the role FIRES played i the collapse, not whether debris damage + truss failure + fire brought the building down.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


SUMMARY: The building collapsed because it was severely damaged by WTC 1 falling. Subsequent fires weakend the structure further and it finally succumb at 5 pm. WTC 1 and 2 demonstrated the same thing -- they didn't collapse instantaneously, rather it took about 25 minutes.

What does a delayed reaction say about conspiracies or not?

Read my post above about WTC7

I did...first you said the rubble caused it...then when someone added that wasn't only it you then now expand on your story.

I really don't think you know the facts and are only trying to piece this together now.

Please quote me if that's the case.

I'll state my position again, happily: Rubble fell from WTC 1, hitting the side of WTC 7, causing massive damage to the support structure and starting fires within the building. When the load-bearing mechanisms failed, the building began to collapse. Fires expedited the process.

edit: reading my WTC 7 post, I state that right off the bat:

The "government's" explanation (along with everyone else's) is that WTC got reamed by the collapsing towers. The fires that were started on further destabilized the building.

Now I mis-stated the government's position because it is not yet final. However, like I said, the 'finality' has to do with what role the fires and support structures played, not whether they were the cause of the collapse.

And, answer my question, what does "delayed reactions" have to do with how WTC 7 collapsed?

I'll ask my questions again:
- If explosives were planted, why did they not go off when main towers came crashing down? Why wait nearly 10 hours to blow them up?
- If explosives were planted, why did firefighters believe that the building was already going to collapse three hours before it actually did?
- If someone wired WTC 7 to blow up, then why hit WTC 1 and 2 with planes? Why not outfit them with explosives too?

 

[Ns1]

See sig. With logic like that, this battle cannot be won.

 

[jaredfs]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The government can't win with people like you. Either you blast them because they aren't willing to say for certain what happened until their investigation concludes or you blast them for being too hasty to reach a certain conclusion.

I have not blasted this report. What is hilarious is that you think you know exactly what happened while the experts hired by the government admit they aren't sure.

Please re-read Chapter 5. The whole thing. Read the Potential Collapse methods and you'll realize that what they're debating is not whether the combination of debris damage + fire + failed trusses brought the building down, but what ratios those aspects played in the building's collapse.

I think you need to reread it. They make it clear that the WTC 2 collapse did not do any known significant damage to WTC 7 and that "the extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7" caused by WTC 1 collapse is "currently unknown."

The report uses phrases like "may have" many times, unlike you who magically knows every detail of how WTC 7 collapsed.

Your quote is disingenuous at best, it refers to the role FIRES played i the collapse, not whether debris damage + truss failure + fire brought the building down.

LOL, the quote is from the end of their report in the "Observations and Findings" section, which is basically a summary. At no point in this section do they propose anything other than the fires as the underlying cause of the collapse.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


But according to our experts like NS1, Disgruntled, et al seismic waves and the fires caused this easily. And everyone knows a building pancakes in these situations.

Did you even read what I wrote? Nearly 1/3 of the lower part of the building was missing.

Let me paint you a fucking picture:

http://truthandthedevil.com/up...s/2007/04/wtc7hit1.jpg

See the tens of millions of pounds of rubble hurtling towards the side of WTC 7? Guess what happened when concrete met building. Seriously. Guess.[/quote]



2nd. Besides, I was watching it on TV and they noted that the building was beginning to show buckle marks on the exterior quite a while before it fell.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The government can't win with people like you. Either you blast them because they aren't willing to say for certain what happened until their investigation concludes or you blast them for being too hasty to reach a certain conclusion.

I have not blasted this report. What is hilarious is that you think you know exactly what happened while the experts hired by the government admit they aren't sure.

Please re-read Chapter 5. The whole thing. Read the Potential Collapse methods and you'll realize that what they're debating is not whether the combination of debris damage + fire + failed trusses brought the building down, but what ratios those aspects played in the building's collapse.

I think you need to reread it. They make it clear that the WTC 2 collapse did not do any known significant damage to WTC 7 and that "the extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7" caused by WTC 1 collapse is "currently unknown."

The report uses phrases like "may have" many times, unlike you who magically knows every detail of how WTC 7 collapsed.

Your quote is disingenuous at best, it refers to the role FIRES played i the collapse, not whether debris damage + truss failure + fire brought the building down.

LOL, the quote is from the end of their report in the "Observations and Findings" section, which is basically a summary. At no point in this section do they propose anything other than the fires as the underlying cause of the collapse.

Maybe you can point out the part where explosives caused it to fall.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: alkemyst


The metal in a sword is not exactly what they built buildings out of.

Scientists, engineers and others have stated if this wasn't a fire fueled by AVGAS raising it's temperature significantly it would not have had the same effect.

The problem with that is the 3rd tower didn't have anything fueling it. Later they began going with there were diesel tanks in that tower that did it. Diesel isn't really a volatile fuel though which was a huge reason the military adopted it.

What does AVGAS have to do with anything?

On one hand you're saying that the towers fell because there was AVGAS in them (which there wasn't), and then you go on to say that diesel isn't volatile enough to make much of a difference in a fire.

Utter nonsense.

Diesel is closer to what jets use than AVGAS.

 

[darkswordsman17]

On the subject of WTC7, there was an emergency center located in it, which had its own generators and also a big tank of diesel to run them. The insurance companies weren't completely willing to pay for it because of this.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com...c-Company-History.html (read the end parts).

IceBergSlim, I don't really feel that you were being sincere when you said you were wrong, but if you are I apologize for being skeptical, and it is commendable that you'd actually be willing to accept it.

I'm actually glad that CasioTech has posted so much in here, on such a wide variety of subjects. It just shows to anyone who might be inclined to believe him how deep his dementia runs. At this point, they're just throwing out any and all things they possibly could hoping that something might prove credible, but, as with all the previous attempts, none of it does. Just look at their comments. They freely admit they have no idea who could be behind, but that doesn't stop them from trying to say someone was behind it. The fact is, 9/11 was planned. It was planned by a terrorist organization (how they can even debate this is beyond me considering they openly admitted to it), and was executed by that same organization. Are there some strange things about it? Absolutely, but nothing that points to some grand conspiracy.

Oh, and to stir the pot here, since I haven't seen it posted in this thread. Why hasn't anyone said the media was behind it? That would at least be almost remotely believable, and it would really play right into your "don't believe what the media showed you" mentality.

 

[MustangSVT]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf



And once again:

I have to wonder why you are actually this stupid. All you have done is ramble off a handfull of random, unrelated tidbits that any third grader could reason through. Propose a theory and give evidence supporting that theory and maybe we won't think you are a total moron.

Tell me how many square ft of space will be available in the new towers?

I would like to do this exercise so you can see how much he really stands to profit from his investment.

Why even bother answering the stupid dwarf? he obviously can't make a rational argument and just keeps on name calling.. hmmm why isnt he given a vacation? did the rules change?

 

[91TTZ]

It's amazing just how many stupid people there are out there that believe this crap. There truly is a sucker born every minute.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
The government can't win with people like you. Either you blast them because they aren't willing to say for certain what happened until their investigation concludes or you blast them for being too hasty to reach a certain conclusion.

I have not blasted this report. What is hilarious is that you think you know exactly what happened while the experts hired by the government admit they aren't sure.

Please re-read Chapter 5. The whole thing. Read the Potential Collapse methods and you'll realize that what they're debating is not whether the combination of debris damage + fire + failed trusses brought the building down, but what ratios those aspects played in the building's collapse.

I think you need to reread it. They make it clear that the WTC 2 collapse did not do any known significant damage to WTC 7 and that "the extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7" caused by WTC 1 collapse is "currently unknown."

The report uses phrases like "may have" many times, unlike you who magically knows every detail of how WTC 7 collapsed.

Your quote is disingenuous at best, it refers to the role FIRES played i the collapse, not whether debris damage + truss failure + fire brought the building down.

LOL, the quote is from the end of their report in the "Observations and Findings" section, which is basically a summary. At no point in this section do they propose anything other than the fires as the underlying cause of the collapse.

WTC 2 is too far away to have caused any damage to WTC 7.

While they do state they do not know the damage caused by WTC 1's collapse, they also do acknowledge that it's "likely" collapse played a role in the failure of WTC 7's internal supports. Whether this is by direct impact or by fire-starting, they aren't sure.

In fact, they state "The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC 7 are currently unknown. However, from photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts discussed below, it was assumed that the south side of the building was damaged to some degree and that fires in WTC 7 started at approximately this time."

This thread was originally about 9/11 being an inside job. What evidence is there that WTC 7 was brought down by anything other than what we're going back and forth about? If there were explosives used, I think we need to address the questions I stated before, not rehash FEMA's report.

Edit: In addressing your concerns, I got the NIST's report confused with the FEMA report. I cited the incorrect report and, while FEMA's does mention the possibility (likelihood) that falling debris caused the fires to start, it is the NIST's report that outlines a much more comprehensive explanation (and the one which I was citing while having this discussion). Again, I'm genuinely sorry I had the reports confused.

 

[jaredfs]

Originally posted by: Ns1
Maybe you can point out the part where explosives caused it to fall.

That's because as I originally pointed out, they spent zero time even considering explosives as a possibility. It's sad when your average CSI investigation is more in depth.

They are suppose to be releasing another report on WTC 7 sometime here, though.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Oh, and to stir the pot here, since I haven't seen it posted in this thread. Why hasn't anyone said the media was behind it? That would at least be almost remotely believable, and it would really play right into your "don't believe what the media showed you" mentality.

Okay, if the media did it we need to outline what their potential gains are, what their risks are, what resources they have available to carry out such an attack.

I'm no good at coming up with conspiracy theories, so if someone has answers to these questions, we can at least try and logically puzzle through how probable that scenario is.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: Ns1
Maybe you can point out the part where explosives caused it to fall.

That's because as I originally pointed out, they spent zero time even considering explosives as a possibility. It's sad when your average CSI investigation is more in depth.

They are suppose to be releasing another report on WTC 7 sometime here, though.

Like I said though, if explosives were used, that raises a whole series of circumstantial questions:
- If explosives were planted, why did they not go off when main towers came crashing down? Why wait nearly 10 hours to blow them up?
- If explosives were planted, why did firefighters believe that the building was already going to collapse three hours before it actually did?
- If someone wired WTC 7 to blow up, then why hit WTC 1 and 2 with planes? Why not outfit them with explosives too?

 

[moshquerade]

Let's play "Name the ATOTers" in this pic.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: MustangSVT

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf



And once again:

I have to wonder why you are actually this stupid. All you have done is ramble off a handfull of random, unrelated tidbits that any third grader could reason through. Propose a theory and give evidence supporting that theory and maybe we won't think you are a total moron.

Tell me how many square ft of space will be available in the new towers?

I would like to do this exercise so you can see how much he really stands to profit from his investment.

Why even bother answering the stupid dwarf? he obviously can't make a rational argument and just keeps on name calling.. hmmm why isnt he given a vacation? did the rules change?

calling me out something I didn't do at all in this thread??? u just pwned yourself

 

[jaredfs]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
I'll ask my questions again:
- If explosives were planted, why did they not go off when main towers came crashing down? Why wait nearly 10 hours to blow them up?
- If explosives were planted, why did firefighters believe that the building was already going to collapse three hours before it actually did?
- If someone wired WTC 7 to blow up, then why hit WTC 1 and 2 with planes? Why not outfit them with explosives too?

OK, I'll take a shot at your questions just for the heck of it...

1. The terrorists mission is to spread terror, panic, etc. WTC 7 went down at 5:20 pm - peak drive time for radio. People are looking forward to going home and relaxing and then they are hit with news of another building going down.

2. They had just witnessed two other towers with fires come collapsing down. Of course they were going to worry about another collapse.

3. Hitting them with planes spreads more fear than just using explosives. In addition to making people fearful of their buildings blowing up, they also have to fear planes crashing into it. Then there are all the increased fears when traveling by air.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Let's play "Name the ATOTers" in this pic.

Ooo, I like this game.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: jaredfs

Originally posted by: Ns1
Maybe you can point out the part where explosives caused it to fall.

That's because as I originally pointed out, they spent zero time even considering explosives as a possibility. It's sad when your average CSI investigation is more in depth.

They are suppose to be releasing another report on WTC 7 sometime here, though.

I don't know man, this seems like they spent some time considering it

IST?s findings also do not support the ?controlled demolition? theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

*

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

*

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

This link also seems alot more logical than many theories presented in this thread.