Kerry said what!?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

You and your aluminuium foil beenie wearing buddies should get together and discuss your theories.

I used to think those "9/11 was fake" people were nuts too, but the explaination of how the buildings collapsed doesn't match with the physics of the actual observed collapse. That's not a discrepancy I can easily sweep under the rug.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by sperry

The buildings did not "pancake" down, they were demolished with a sequence of timed explosive charges... or they exist in some other dimension where gravity has different rules.

I discount this possibility simply because there is no way a "controlled demolition" of the towers could have been accomplished without people knowing about it.

Think about the amount of HE required to demolish TWO skyscrapers that large. That would require a massive amount of analysis & planning so a large group of people would have to be involved (making it less likely that a secret that heinous could be kept), the buildings would have to be honeycombed with HE, detonators & wires running everywhere, and then all that would have to be coordinated with multiple independent groups of foreign terrorists simultaneously hijacking planes and flying them into separate targets. All without anyone else in the government or who worked in the buildings noticing any of these preparations. I mean come on. That is some seriously X-Files shit, dude. Is the smoking man behind all of it?

The simple fact is that there will never be a way to know exactly what happened in the core of the buildings after those planes hit. Maybe they already had structural issues before the impacts. Maybe key bolted joints were fatiguing 30 years after construction. Maybe some of the welding was sub-par and slipped through inspection. Who the fuck knows? Shit happens all the time, especially in the construction industry. Whatever happened, it didn't defy physics, and it wasn't because PNAC or some govt. agency decided to blow up the towers.

[sp00ln]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

I discount this possibility simply because there is no way a "controlled demolition" of the towers could have been accomplished without people knowing about it.

Think about the amount of HE required to demolish TWO skyscrapers that large. That would require a massive amount of analysis & planning so a large group of people would have to be involved (making it less likely that a secret that heinous could be kept), the buildings would have to be honeycombed with HE, detonators & wires running everywhere, and then all that would have to be coordinated with multiple independent groups of foreign terrorists simultaneously hijacking planes and flying them into separate targets. All without anyone else in the government or who worked in the buildings noticing any of these preparations. I mean come on. That is some seriously X-Files shit, dude. Is the smoking man behind all of it?

Exactly.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

I discount this possibility simply because there is no way a "controlled demolition" of the towers could have been accomplished without people knowing about it.

Think about the amount of HE required to demolish TWO skyscrapers that large. That would require a massive amount of analysis & planning so a large group of people would have to be involved (making it less likely that a secret that heinous could be kept), the buildings would have to be honeycombed with HE, detonators & wires running everywhere, and then all that would have to be coordinated with multiple independent groups of foreign terrorists simultaneously hijacking planes and flying them into separate targets. All without anyone else in the government or who worked in the buildings noticing any of these preparations. I mean come on. That is some seriously X-Files shit, dude. Is the smoking man behind all of it?

The simple fact is that there will never be a way to know exactly what happened in the core of the buildings after those planes hit. Maybe they already had structural issues before the impacts. Maybe key bolted joints were fatiguing 30 years after construction. Maybe some of the welding was sub-par and slipped through inspection. Who the fuck knows? Shit happens all the time, especially in the construction industry. Whatever happened, it didn't defy physics, and it wasn't because PNAC or some govt. agency decided to blow up the towers.

The WTC was greatly unoccupied.... there were lots of empty floors. Many people reported lots of "construction" going on above and below them in the months before the attacks. Also, many tennants were moved from one floor to another in the months before the attacks.

Two weeks before the attack the bomb sniffing dogs were all taken off duty w/ no explaination.

The weekend before the attack, there was a power outtage for the entire building for a "network upgrade" that meant none of the security systems were running, and tennants reported seeing *many* unusual workmen about.

The WTC wreckage shows all sorts of evidence of shaped charges cutting the metal at an angle to allow the building to shift as it fell, SOP for demolitions.

When it was destroyed, the WTC was losing money hand over fist. The guy that owned the building purchased it shortly before the attacks, and took out a massive new insurance policy on it that specifically emphasized coverage of a "complete loss" of the buildings due to terrorist attacks. He also sued after the attack to get double the payout because he argued each plane constituted a "seperate attack". Homeboy went from wasting millions of dollars buying a money losing property to making like $7 billion if I remember correctly.

I have two words regarding the WTC attacks: "insurance fraud". And of course, why not help out your New American Century pals that need a "Pearl Harbor" event to allow them to take over the world, right?

...anyway, I don't really know what to think... all I know is that it seems at least as plausible for a demo crew to take down the buildings as it is for the planes alone ('cause IMO the planes can't do it, not in the way that they were actually observed). But you're right... it would take a *ton* of people working on this job. I think the truth will come out eventually as long as people keep asking about the discrepancies.

And for the record, I think Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, acting alone, w/ three rifle shots from the book depository.

[JonnydaJibba]

7 billion dollars can pay a ton of people. I've never heard that angle. But it does make a lot of sense.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by sperry

The WTC was greatly unoccupied.... there were lots of empty floors. Many people reported lots of "construction" going on above and below them in the months before the attacks. Also, many tennants were moved from one floor to another in the months before the attacks.

Two weeks before the attack the bomb sniffing dogs were all taken off duty w/ no explaination.

The weekend before the attack, there was a power outtage for the entire building for a "network upgrade" that meant none of the security systems were running, and tennants reported seeing *many* unusual workmen about.

Again, the massive amount of people that would have had to work on the project and keep absolutely quiet. Never mind that they would know they were engaged in murdering thousands of their fellow countrymen. Do you really think not a single person that was involved in or discovered plans for mass murder on that grand of a scale would not drop a note to a newspaper?

Originally Posted by sperry

The WTC wreckage shows all sorts of evidence of shaped charges cutting the metal at an angle to allow the building to shift as it fell, SOP for demolitions.

All I hear in these theories are talk about how strong the buildings were, they were designed to withstand a 707 impact, the wreckage looks funny, it's not possible for the fires to have weakened the structure enough to collapse them, yada yada yada... but you know what? There had never been a test case where a skyscraper took an airstrike from a 600mph, 390,000lb explosive missile before! Design calculations are just that, calculations. They are not the real world. Fuck-ups happen, especially when there is no testing - if it has not been tested, then talking about "it was designed for this or that" is just pie in the sky nonsense.

Originally Posted by sperry

When it was destroyed, the WTC was losing money hand over fist. The guy that owned the building purchased it shortly before the attacks, and took out a massive new insurance policy on it that specifically emphasized coverage of a "complete loss" of the buildings due to terrorist attacks. He also sued after the attack to get double the payout because he argued each plane constituted a "seperate attack". Homeboy went from wasting millions of dollars buying a money losing property to making like $7 billion if I remember correctly.

Sounds like common sense to me when buying one of the biggest, flashiest building complexes in the world, that houses a large chunk of our financial sector, and that has already been bombed once before, in a post-cold war environment of increasing terrorism against large American targets throughout the world.

Originally Posted by sperry

I have two words regarding the WTC attacks: "insurance fraud". And of course, why not help out your New American Century pals that need a "Pearl Harbor" event to allow them to take over the world, right?

...anyway, I don't really know what to think... all I know is that it seems at least as plausible for a demo crew to take down the buildings as it is for the planes alone ('cause IMO the planes can't do it, not in the way that they were actually observed).

As much as I dislike the PNAC types and would like to agree, I simply can't. I don't think our government is competent enough to pull off the biggest, deadliest snow job in history, perpetrated against its own citizens no less.

Possible? Yes, anything's possible. Plausible? I don't think so, Tim.

[JonnydaJibba]

I think if somebody wanted to commit insurance fraud (and help the gov't justify going to war) by paying a buncha people to help blow up a building they wouldn't pay Americans to do it.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

Again, the massive amount of people that would have had to work on the project and keep absolutely quiet. Never mind that they would know they were engaged in murdering thousands of their fellow countrymen. Do you really think not a single person that was involved in or discovered plans for mass murder on that grand of a scale would not drop a note to a newspaper?



All I hear in these theories are talk about how strong the buildings were, they were designed to withstand a 707 impact, the wreckage looks funny, it's not possible for the fires to have weakened the structure enough to collapse them, yada yada yada... but you know what? There had never been a test case where a skyscraper took an airstrike from a 600mph, 390,000lb explosive missile before! Design calculations are just that, calculations. They are not the real world. Fuck-ups happen, especially when there is no testing - if it has not been tested, then talking about "it was designed for this or that" is just pie in the sky nonsense.



Sounds like common sense to me when buying one of the biggest, flashiest building complexes in the world, that houses a large chunk of our financial sector, and that has already been bombed once before, in a post-cold war environment of increasing terrorism against large American targets throughout the world.



As much as I dislike the PNAC types and would like to agree, I simply can't. I don't think our government is competent enough to pull off the biggest, deadliest snow job in history, perpetrated against its own citizens no less.

Possible? Yes, anything's possible. Plausible? I don't think so, Tim.

I'm not saying I know what happened... or that I even believe the theory I'm proposing. I'm just saying that the laws of physics prevent the official explaination of why the buildings fell from matching the observed collapse. There is no way the top of the building could reach the ground in 10 seconds if it had to impact the floors below and cause them to collapse. The buildings came down in freefall... the only thing that does that is a controlled demolition.

All I'm contending is that we should figure out how it happened... but since all the debris was immediately collected and recycled, we can't even do a proper forensics invesitagtion. Hell, even if it wasn't a terrorist attack, even if no one died in the collapse... don't you think the engineering community would be interested in examining the debris? Again... another unanswered question. One of far too many when it comes to the global importance of this attack.

If you've got 90 minutes, this documentary has the info I've been spouting:

http://www.freepressinternational.co...mysteries.html

...just ignore all the weather and mind control crap on the right.

[Dean]

I think that site has it's own agenda (Daaah), and if you have seen the latest Discovery channel piece, I think you will see it is not impossible. And quite a bit of forensics was done, and a significant portion of the debris was kept...

The mass of the upper floors is only slightly slowed by the relatively insignificant mass of the individual floors below as they impacted. Remember, the pancake does not start at the top, it starts at the point of impact, or possibly below. Also, both the above and below sections can pancake at the same time.

And there is no way the top floor ever reaches ground level, so the whole drop an object vs. the top of the building thing is silly.

A number of good scientific web sites on the collapse... Here is one relevant quote.

Originally Posted by http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips.

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

I think that site has it's own agenda (Daaah), and if you have seen the latest Discovery channel piece, I think you will see it is not impossible. And quite a bit of forensics was done, and a significant portion of the debris was kept...

The mass of the upper floors is only slightly slowed by the relatively insignificant mass of the individual floors below as they impacted. Remember, the pancake does not start at the top, it starts at the point of impact, or possibly below. Also, both the above and below sections can pancake at the same time.

And there is no way the top floor ever reaches ground level, so the whole drop an object vs. the top of the building thing is silly.

A number of good scientific web sites on the collapse... Here is one relevant quote.

And the visible puffs of smoke well in advance of the collapse?

How about the disintegration of the building sections above the point of impact? Shouldn't the tops of the buildings remained intact until they hit the bottom?

What about reports of explosions from the basement, and throughout the building before the collapse?

Nevermind all the stuff about the pentagon (why does one of the world's most secure buildings only have video coverage of the impact from one crappy camera that records one frame every 2 seconds and took 4 years to be released?)

Or the stuff about WTC7 that came down looking like a text book building demolition after only limited fire from WTC1/2 debris? (Remember with the exception of WTC 1 & 2 only hours earlier, no steel buildings had ever collapesed due to fire... in one day we had 3?)

All I want is an explaination that addresses the observed destruction. I don't think there's a massive governement cover up... I think our government just doesn't bother to look into what really happend because the current story works to their advantage with regards to our forign policy. 9/11 as a pure terrorist attack is a great bargaining chip for use w/ American citizens... "You don't like the War in Iraq? Well, if we don't fight them overseas, they'll fight us here!"

All it would really take are 5 or 6 powerful people in on it (like the Silverstien fellow that bought the WTC and a few of his best buddies) to hire some Al Queda types to wire up the buildings and crash some planes into it. For the terrorists, they get to attack America, for Silverstien, he gets a new building and a few billion dollars in his pocket.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html

The secret wouldn't have to be shared by all that many people... and in fact there would only need to be maybe 5 people that were totally in on it. The rest of the people would know they were up to something nefarious, but they wouldn't know the extent of the conspiracy.

[Dean]

No matter what I say, I'm pretty sure you will pick on something else. So choose to believe what you will.

As I said, the pancake progresses in both directions once the collapse starts, so no, the top should not hit still intact.

Puffs of smoke and dust are mostly indistinguishable on crappy low res video. And the later can be explained by just about anything related to stress and failure, escaping air, etc...

Witnesses are unreliable. "Explosions" are indistinguishable from very loud noises of other types, and nearly impossible to determine original source due to the limitations of the human ears, and the ease in which sound can be transmitted through different materials over great distances.

I'm not even going to start the Pentagon discussion.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

No matter what I say, I'm pretty sure you will pick on something else. So choose to believe what you will.

As I said, the pancake progresses in both directions once the collapse starts, so no, the top should not hit still intact.

Puffs of smoke and dust are mostly indistinguishable on crappy low res video. And the later can be explained by just about anything related to stress and failure, escaping air, etc...

Witnesses are unreliable. "Explosions" are indistinguishable from very loud noises of other types, and nearly impossible to determine original source due to the limitations of the human ears, and the ease in which sound can be transmitted through different materials over great distances.

I'm not even going to start the Pentagon discussion.

First, thanks for allowing me to believe what I choose to believe, that's very generous of you.

Second, if you watch the video of the collapse, the upper floors litterally disintegrate without impacting anything... The top of the building begins to tip over, but then turns into dust.

Before you blame the evidence of explosive charges on an issue w/ video resolution, watch the video... http://911review.org/Wget/members.fo...explosions.htm Or better yet watch the documentary I linked, it's well outlined in that.

Also, you're saying that the guy who was blown through a wall and burned by a fireball in the basement of the building before the collapse was burned by a very loud noise? What about all firefighters that were in the building reporting explosions... are all of them "unreliable witnesses"?

I'm guessing you didn't watch the documentary I linked. I know it's long, but it does raise far more questions than the official story even attempts to answer. My point is not to convince anyone that this is what happened... my point is that the official description of what happened can't describe what was observed. Plain and simple: what the media and FEMA have told us is wrong and/or incomplete. Yet no one seems to care... in the last 5 years, Americans have just accepted that we live in a new world where terrorists will "get us" if we don't proactively stop them first. We believe this primarily because of what we believe happened on 9/11. If there's even just the slightest chance that 9/11 was really a big ol' case of insurance fraud, we need to prove it one way or the other, because the reality would be that we're making things far worse by hunting terrorists in their homes... we make them hate us more, and therefore we make them more dangerous to us, and all because some asshole to illegally demolish his buildings w/ some hijacked planes.

[MorganK]

http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/na...sing_trillions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html