A good read...

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Landshark

i WAS agreeing with you.

the main thing that annoys me is how the conspiracy theorists grab one little fact (jet fuel not hot enough to melt steel), and grab onto it and ignore all else.

what about the fact that a big object was carrying this jet fuel and smacked into the buildings at high speed, weakening the structure? burning for hours, jet fuel weakens the steel, and with who-knows-how-many-tons-of-building on top of it, it eventually gives way.

...but jet fuel fires can't melt steel!

Never mind all of the other flammable items on each floor.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by shotgunslade

He though it was a private jet.

DUELY noted. This coincides with "conspiracy theories" suggesting the airliners were unmarked. Why would you think a jet is private if you can read giant letters on the tail, and why would an airliner be unmarked?

Then I saw this enormous plume of flame that seemed to jump out of the side of the building.

Thousands of gallons of jet fuel, right? What else? The wings broke apart, spilling the majority (or a great deal) of jet fuel out of the building. The building and plane itself didn't just spontaneously combust. Planes could also have been detonated with explosives on impact. Seems likely since they were all but obliterated.

I Know Les Robertson , the structural engineer who designed the towers, personally, and I know he is satisifed with the conclusions that have been almost universally agreed concerning how the towers came down.

Ok, but is he the sole engineer of the building? I don't know, this is why I ask.
Here is a somewhat related quote from him, that should give the rest of us insight to his character:

Robertson stressed, however, that engineers should not change their designs to be able to withstand the impact of high-speed planes. Robertson recalled that in the weeks following Sept. 11, engineers were questioning him about how to re-design their work in case of a terrorist attack.
"To me this is a non-issue," he said. "We should be spending our money on trying to make peace with the Middle East, not spending it on tactics for homeland security."

Seems like a decent chap. Does that sound like something he'd say?

These conclusions are a result of calculations, observations of the deformation of the structural elements in the debris, analysis of the few surviving pieces of the strucutral clips of the beams to the structural columns, and analysis of slow motion videos of the collapse. The short answer is that the spray-on fireproofing for the connections of the open web joists to the exterior columns degraded over time, allowing the enormous heat from the burning jet fuel to compromise their structural integrity.

Yes, I read the NIST report. It is HARDLY unquestionable. It is full of holes. It does not explain very much at all and even admits in it's own pages, how unreliable it is. Go read it. You can see for yourself.

The connections on the impact floor failed, allowing the floor slab to pancake downward, pulling the connections loose for the slabs below. As the lateral support of the exterior columns was released, eventually they buckled outward, and it was all over.

The pancake theory defies logic and the very laws of physics. The floors below the impact should not have been structurally weakened to the extent reported. They were not hit by jet fuel fire (or as much, or nearly as hot or dense) and with the decapitated section resting on top, should not have been subjected to any abnormal forces other than shifting and redispersion of the weight which until the point of collapse seemed to be holding up fine. You have to understand it is completely illogical for the entire building to fail all at once, and not just one but 3 buildings in a very short span of time and the damage to the buildings was not even the same! One tower was not even hit directly in the center, and much higher up. At worst the decapitted section should have just fallen over, or sat there, a smoldering mess, but no, that would damage buildings owned by people who are not involved.

with the possible exception of some minor details. It was not the impact of the planes, it was the destruction of structural connections by the intense heat of the burning jet fuel that killed the towers.

Minor details? Intense heat of the burning jet fuel, the majority of which flew outside the buildings in a great fireball?

Very likely the reason for the failure of that building was the heat provided by the combustion of the large volume of diesel fuel housed in storage tanks for the back-up generators for that data center. WE were not liable because the design of the fuel storage system complied in every detail with the building codes of that time. But, the falling debris from the towers almost certainly ruptured those tanks and ignited the fuel.

Right, the little debris there was fell through multiple floors, rupturing deisel tanks in the basement yet somehow the resulting debris of both buildings didn't smother the fuel and it was able to auto-ignite, or splash into an electrical socket or hanging live wires, or something.
The pictures of the smoke (grey) billowing from the building are interestingly devoid of the thick black sulfur clouds you'd expect from a deisel fire, but then again, the fuel was only in the basement. Fires were raging through the entire building, for some reason.

So who do we blame? You radical military conservative types like to blame Iraqis and the the little extremist groups in that area. You want to know who I blame? The military. NORAD, specifically. They let these planes reach their targets. This is NOT NORMAL. The FBI continually allowed Osama to escape even after foreign governments offered him on a silver platter. They squashed any investigative attempts because they needed him to remain at large so Bush could go to war. Explosives or not, controlled demo or not, the government is totally at fault and I don't understand how you continue to stand by the people involved.
You know who else I blame? The pilots and the passengers, if they even existed. You don't think they would try to defend themselves?
Oh, right, that's why they made up that one story of the one plane being brought down by the passengers. Somehow they were unable to keep it in the air because of some skinny guys with box cutters, and it crashed into a tiny hole, disintergrating completely.

The official 9/11 story is so full of holes and inconsistencies and ideal situations that it seems totally fabricated.
Bull****.

Originally Posted by svxistentialist

I remember seeing an interview with Osama Bin Laden, it must have been on Al Jazeera I think. In it he expressed surprise that the two blocks collapsed. It was not part of the attack plan. I also remember being sickened when he laughed and described it as an unexpected "bonus". There is no humanity and zero bravery in running a sneak attack which kills such a number of innocent civilians.

Joe

The original video of Bin Laden was not even Bin Laden, it was a stunt double that looked nothing like him. How can they get away with that if he is such a wanted man? Easy, it was faked.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Bill Clinton continually allowed Osama to escape even after foreign governments offered him on a silver platter, because he was busy chasing chubby interns around his desk.

fixed.

The original video of Bin Laden was not even Bin Laden, it was a stunt double that looked nothing like him. How can they get away with that if he is such a wanted man? Easy, it was faked.

[NikFu S.]

Sure, Clinton had problems as well.

And did you never see this tape of "Osama Bin Laden"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

If I wanted to spend several minutes finding the original, I would, but no make do with that annoying voiceover kid.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Sure, Clinton had problems as well.

And did you never see this tape of "Osama Bin Laden"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41UAnkQARFs

If I wanted to spend several minutes finding the original, I would, but no make do with that annoying voiceover kid.

is this OBL? (linked from your conspiracy video) it kinda seems he's taking responsibility for 9/11, and giving his reasons why they did it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dls5J...eature=related

maybe the FBI did the subtitles, and he was actually condemning the act and offering his condolences.

[NikFu S.]

WTF is OBL? (Nevermind, I got it ) All I'm saying is big G said that was Osama, and it wasn't.

The other videos, sure, it's him, I guess. I don't know the guy. But the one I posted is not the same guy, yet was broadcast on national television as if it were.

In the video you posted (I've never watched these before as I did not care to hear what the man says) he seems to be saying his aggressions are in defense or revenge of some sort. Sounds about right. America is usually firing the first shots. We constantly mobilize the military because there is almost zero chance of war ever coming to our shores. The generals get bored easily.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

.....he seems to be saying his aggressions are in defense or revenge of some sort.Sounds about right. America is usually firing the first shots. We constantly mobilize the military because there is almost zero chance of war ever coming to our shores. The generals get bored easily.

so in your eyes he was justified sending those planes into the buildings and killing thousands of innocent people?

[NikFu S.]

In my eyes nobody is ever justified in violent action if it results in death or loss of liberty. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to receive I good smack in the mouth or swift kick to the ass, but I never can condone truly violent acts.
I also agree with Gandhi's philosophy that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

MY POINT is just because someone does something wrong to you, you can't just overlook the things you did wrong to them. That's a trait of a vengeful and unreasonable entity.
Also don't forget your military and government did absolutely nothing to prevent "OBL's" actions. Osama deserves only half the blame.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Also don't forget your military and government did absolutely nothing to prevent "OBL's" actions. Osama deserves only half the blame.

wait a minute, i thought George Bush, the FBI, and Scrappy-Doo conspired to blow up the twin towers with explosives...... not Osama and airplanes.

which is it?

[odepaj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uloVLcJncbE

[NikFu S.]

No matter which way you slice it, Osama is involved. I never admitted to being fully subscribed to any conspiracy theory anyway.
I just look at the evidence I see from any one source, and make my own assumptions and judgements and form my own questions.
Sometimes I regurgitate quotes and data and links from other people, but that doesn't mean I'm hypnotized by the people finding/presenting/creating/manipulating the data.
I think for myself, and I think the offical report was done hastily, and there is always the chance of a cover-up, something this nation is accustomed to. My BIGGEST problem with the offical stories and people following those stories is they flatly deny any chance of conspiracy or cover up, yet there is evidence of multiple, potentially linked scandals. There is a thick pasty coat of pure scandal enveloping the nation right now, everywhere you look.
Even Alaska's senator, whom I thought was a decent person, is now involved in scandal.

Stevens is currently under investigation by the FBI and IRS for possible corruption based on his relationship with an oil service company executive who has pled guilty to bribing Alaskan legislators, including Stevens' son, former State Senator Ben Stevens. On July 30, 2007, the IRS and the FBI searched Stevens' home in Alaska.[1]

When you are surrounded by this stuff you get to a point where you question everything. If you don't, well, you are either too dumb or too apathetic.


Question. Authority. Do it.

Originally Posted by odepaj

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uloVLcJncbE

The one major fault in your plan to prove Mars is blue, well, you can see Mars from the ground, on Earth. Any 6 year old can prove it is red.
But sure, yeah, it has a tiny atmosphere and oceans of carbon ice, and the sky changes color with the passing of the day. Nobody ever said the entire planet is red. It is just "the red planet" because it appears to be red.

[odepaj]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

The one major fault in your plan to prove Mars is blue, well, you can see Mars from the ground, on Earth. Any 6 year old can prove it is red.
But sure, yeah, it has a tiny atmosphere and oceans of carbon ice, and the sky changes color with the passing of the day. Nobody ever said the entire planet is red. It is just "the red planet" because it appears to be red.

I don't ever remember saying I thought Mars was blue?

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

9/11, Oklahoma City bombing, WTC bombing, all Federal schemes. Taliban, CREATED by the US.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I never admitted to being fully subscribed to any conspiracy theory anyway.

holmes, you are all over the place.

i'd recommend a psychologist/psychiatrist and some heavy antipsychotic medication.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by odepaj

I don't ever remember saying I thought Mars was blue?

I know you were joking, but multiple times in this thread you said you could prove Mars is blue with a video.

My point is I can go outside and prove the opposite. This situation with the government and terrorism and how the government is taking advantage of terrorism to potentially control us OR somehow profit is a MUCH more complicated situation. I am merely hinting at the futility of making such a comparison.

Originally Posted by Landshark

holmes, you are all over the place.
i'd recommend a psychologist/psychiatrist and some heavy antipsychotic medication.

If you want I can be more detailed and put both those quotes back in context, and make them reasonable by adding key words like "funded", "indirectly", and "disinformation".
I don't because I know you will just keep interpreting what I say however you want so long as it fits into your pigeonholing me as a nut conspiracy theorist, when I am just a person looking for answers.
To what extent I believe something was created or is a scheme is for me to know and you to find out.

As for medication, that is a scam as well. Not nearly as many people actually need meds as are prescribed. Instead of handing out Prozac or whatever is popular right now like candy, we would be better off fixing the problems that lead to manic or anti-social behaviour, but then drug companies wouldn't make any money.
Besides, nothing I believe is the result of a psychosis. My problem is I am far too planted in the real world and can't escape it's barrage of reports of wrong doing. Must be nice to be able to just forget about things and let some people you'll never meet run your life.

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Must be nice to be able to just forget about things and let some people you'll never meet run your life.

yeah, its pretty sweet. they call me "McLovin", too.