Thread: An interesting 9-11 video

Originally Posted by Skipp

GC, I used to be just like you. I would get total pd-off at anyone claiming other than the NIST report. But I decided to open my mind and give the crazy nut conspiracy people a chance to explain with open ears. I was very disturbed on what I found. Numeruos inconsistency's in the "offical explaination" Bob Ryan cheif mamager at Underwriters Labratory questioned the NIST report, he said it raiosed alot of red flags. Quote "they came to a conclusion and built up the evidence to support the conclusion" he wrote a letter to NIST director. Five days later he was fired this is the guy who certified the steel used in the building of WTC back in 1969. Thats just one example , I am not looking to convince anyone that this government could be involved in something like this. The thought of it just horrifies me. But too much is going unexplained and very suspiscous.And why no explaination for WTC 7 yet? It's 2007 now. I guess that one is alittle harder to explain. The Port Authority, Bob Ryan, Firemen (that lived), Prof. Jones..etc. these are not crazy nut-jobs they are educated repectable people. The big question is WHO and WHY.

Thanks, Kreskin, but you have no idea what I'm "like." I don't have a firm position on what happened, but I am sure as hell going to be certain of my facts before I start accusing people in our government of mass murder. And just so you know, there are PLENTY of cases in which I HAVE IN FACT accused our government of murder because that's what the facts supported. Not only that, I am not the least bit partisan when it comes to pointing out evil in high places. I was as adamant about the criminality of the Bush administration in the Ruby Ridge affair as I was about the criminality of the Clinton administration in the Davidian massacre. I understand fully the depraved acts our elected and appointed official are capable of.

Do you not understand that what I am pointing out is the factual errors of this particular conspiracy theory? I am not so foolish as to believe that just because someone is lying that there is not a possibility of there being some truth behind his claims. However, it is essential that we separate fact from fiction. MANY of the alleged facts used to concoct this particular conspiracy theory are not only pure and demonstrable poppycock, but those propagating them MUST HAVE KNOWN that they were poppycock, because they have deliberately omitted other readily available evidence that weakens or destroys their case.

I don't know how many juries you have sat on, but I have been on a number of them. If you have been a juror, then you know how persuasive a case can sound UNTIL you hear the other side of the story. These conspiracists are intentionally hiding the other side of the story.

What I am seeing here is a number of people who are so anxious to find evil in this administration that they actually DO NOT WANT TO HEAR anything that mitigates their attempts to paint the President as some sort of mass-murdering antiChrist. That's pretty scary. If you have faith in justice, then you take the facts and you base your opinion on the facts, understanding that anything that you accept as fact may eventually be soundly rebutted. When that happens, you have to set your ego and you preconceptions aside and accept that you may not know what you think you know.

In all fairness to anyone who subscribes to these theories about our own government's complicity, most of them do not have my scientific background. Something that seems like a sound and reasonable argument when cleverly presented to the man on the street is somewhat more transparent to someone with the technical knowledge to see its fatal flaws. All I am doing here is factually rebutting those portions of the conspiracy theory that have been misrepresented. That doesn't mean that Bush is not the antiChrist. It just means that someone has fudged some of the facts in building that case, and that doesn't help anyone, nor does it help the cause of finding out what really happened. As a matter of fact, I would put it right up there with going along with evidence obviously planted on a suspect just because he "looked guilty." There may well be guilt here, but I choose to try to determine that guilt honestly. I want to be able to look myself in the mirror every morning, so I don't fudge the facts as my whim dictates nor do I offer quarter to anyone else inclined to do so.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence for the use of thermite is not only less than persuasive, it is all but totally refuted by the actual physical evidence. The fact is that there are people on conspiracy sites blatantly misrepresenting the truth to such a degree that they must know that they are misrepresenting the truth. The fact is that the photos that purport to show sheared beams immediately following the collapse of the towers were contextually demostrated to have been taken long after crews had begun cutting beams with torches to clear the rubble. The creators of the video KNEW that they were showing a picture of a beam that had been cut by torches because it was surrounded by images of workers cutting beams with torches on the very site they identify as their source for the image. The fact is that a lot of people with the best intentions are being jobbed.

Bush may or may not have been complicit in the 9/11 attacks, but there is NO QUESTION that a number of these conspiracy theorists are intentionally fudging facts. Because I don't know whether Bush was complicit in the attacks, I cannot ask WHY he was complicit and expect an answer. But because I can readily demonstrate that there are folks playing fast and loose with the facts in an attempt to hang this crime on the administration, I can fairly ask what THEIR motives may be.

Like I said , I don't care what u believe nor am I going to waste time trying to convince you. First of all you obviously don't even read my exact words, I didn't put the blame on the government or anybody else. I am only looking at the physical evidence, not the "who done it " scenario.Even if everybody knew the government did it, we can't do a damm thing about it. Except sit at our computers and whine to each other.Just for agrument sake, if your on a crew clearing this mess, why in the hell would you take the time to cut all 47 colums at perfect 45 degree angles at the base? Then what, cut them again a few feet lower? Don't anwser me, just ask yourself how stupid that sounds. And don't come back with that same thing you keep repeating that you have all the facts and I have a some mental condition. Yes I have been on a jury, I know civil procedure extremley well. So you might be getting in over your head if you want to start trying to play lawyer on me.Just let it go, you beleive what you want (and i'm ok with that) . Respect that I don't agree.

Originally Posted by Skipp

Like I said , I don't care what u believe nor am I going to waste time trying to convince you. First of all you obviously don't even read my exact words, I didn't put the blame on the government or anybody else. I am only looking at the physical evidence, not the "who done it " scenario.Even if everybody knew the government did it, we can't do a damm thing about it. Except sit at our computers and whine to each other.Just for agrument sake, if your on a crew clearing this mess, why in the hell would you take the time to cut all 47 colums at perfect 45 degree angles at the base? Then what, cut them again a few feet lower? Don't anwser me, just ask yourself how stupid that sounds. And don't come back with that same thing you keep repeating that you have all the facts and I have a some mental condition. Yes I have been on a jury, I know civil procedure extremley well. So you might be getting in over your head if you want to start trying to play lawyer on me.Just let it go, you beleive what you want (and i'm ok with that) . Respect that I don't agree.

Skipp, I would in fact cut anything that heavy at angles so that I could predict the direction that it was falling. And I would probably cut it in multiple pieces to make removal easier. I don't know if you have any concept how heavy some of these solid steel supports are, but consider that steel is about 490 lbs./ cubic foot. Next, consider that one of those supports is probably at least a cubic foot per linear foot. That means that we are talking about one ton for every four feet. Hell yeah someone's going to cut that down into manageable pieces as part of the cleanup process, and it's gonna get cut off at angles so that its fall is directional.

Now, don't start throwing in false claims. I never said or suggested that you have a mental condition, so you may as well cut that crap right now. If you want to argue the facts, let's argue the facts. If you are averse to arguing the facts, that's a whole different situation that carries its own negative connotation.

I note that you did not address the fact that the spooky yellow smoke that was supposed to be proof if thermite (which burns itself out in seconds to about a minute depending on quantity) is STILL rising from the rubble hours or days later as rescue workers sift through the debris. Again, if you want to see yellow smoke, take an old computer and toss it on a campfire. Mystery solved.

If anyone wants to tackle this difficult subject matter, the least that I would ask is that you cut your head in on the deal and avoid kneejerk reactions because the facts aren't what you thought they were and do not lead where you want them to lead. If the government had a role in this, I want to know that as badly as anyone. I am simply not prepared to abandon reason or to take dubious claims at face value as a means to come to my conclusions. In the sciences, we are bound by the facts and by the evidence. Theories for which the facts refuse to cooperate must be abandoned or else we end up not being scientists but dogmatists or propagandists. When considering claims from conspiracy theorists, make sure that you understand the nature of the evidence being presented and the science and engineering behind the claims. If you don't have a background in chemistry or engineering, then do yourself a favor and defer to someone who does.

Just so that people can see what we're talking about, here's the photo in question:



Take a careful look at the photo. You can PLAINLY SEE the pieces that have been cut off in the effort to clear the rubble lying forward of the angle-cut member. Now, I ask you, if this support had been cut as part of a controlled demolition, would the piece cut from it be visible as such, or would it be part of a twisted heap of indistinguishable rubble? You can clearly see the cut off pieces of support from that and another section lying horizontally and diagonally in the image.

Again, debunking this as a thermite cut is laughably simple if you just apply the slightest bit of skepticism to the claims that are being made by the conspiracists.

Could you please indicate where I mentioned yellow smoke? I can give a rats arss about that. I guess I don't know anything about steel. Is it really heavy? I did not know this.One thing I have not brought is the tempeture and the fire itself. Would you like to discuss how fire behaves? There two things that I can claim I have professsional experience: AC electrical systems and fire science. Let's not do this jumping all over the place (we are both doing it). Pick one particular element of the collapse and we can discuss it and move on. How about the fire itself: Do we agree that we see alot more smoke than flame after 10 20 min. after impact? If so do you notice more and more smoke as time goes on? Do you know what that indicates? 1988 Los Angeles: First Interstate Bank building, built exactly simular to WTC construction 2 years after WTC was completed. Caught fire and was three floors of total flames on all sides that burned 3 1/2 hours. No steel damage whatsoever. I can give u a copy of the complete 42 pg. report. To anwser the question above a smoking fire is a starving fire. Please no insults, Lets keep this civilized, you seem fairly reasonable.

Originally Posted by Skipp

Could you please indicate where I mentioned yellow smoke? I can give a rats arss about that. I guess I don't know anything about steel. Is it really heavy? I did not know this.One thing I have not brought is the tempeture and the fire itself. Would you like to discuss how fire behaves? There two things that I can claim I have professsional experience: AC electrical systems and fire science. Let's not do this jumping all over the place (we are both doing it). Pick one particular element of the collapse and we can discuss it and move on. How about the fire itself: Do we agree that we see alot more smoke than flame after 10 20 min. after impact? If so do you notice more and more smoke as time goes on? Do you know what that indicates? 1988 Los Angeles: First Interstate Bank building, built exactly simular to WTC construction 2 years after WTC was completed. Caught fire and was three floors of total flames on all sides that burned 3 1/2 hours. No steel damage whatsoever. I can give u a copy of the complete 42 pg. report. To anwser the question above a smoking fire is a starving fire. Please no insults, Lets keep this civilized, you seem fairly reasonable.

I thought I WAS sticking to one or two specific elements of the story, which was the bogus thermite cliam whose evidence was allegedly 1) angle-cut beams and 2) yellow smoke. As we can see, neither of those pieces of "evidence" hold up.

Smoke. What are you failing to consider? First, heat rises. Second, unburnt fuel descends.

The WTC was, of course, a towering structure. The aircraft in each case collided with the upper quarter of the building, spilling huge amounts of jet fuel into the building. Try a little test. Start some charcoals on your home grill with a small amount of starter fluid, then wait for the fire to go out. While the coals are still hot, but not yet glowing red, shoot another halthy squirt of starter fluid. What happens?

The only point of escape for the smoke was the ruptures in the building caused by the aircraft, but the smoke could have been coming from several floors beneath the impact site. Because the heat from the actual fires was rising, the floors below could easily have remained below full combustion temperature, which would have caused copious amounts of smoke. Beyond that, the endless supply of plastics and other polymers in the form of furniture, office equipment, etc., would have contributed to the smoke plumes regardless of the burn temperature. Remember that those escaping the building complained of smoke well into the lower floors. What that should tell you is that precombustion temperatures extended well below the actual fire, creating huge amounts of smoke that eventually exited the ruptures at the impact site above and wherever the shock has shattered windows, allowing smoke to escape.

Remember that according to a number of engineers, including those that contributed to the final report, it was only necessary that the supports for the floors above the impact sites fail in order for the entire building to collapse. That's because the expanding mass of the collapsing floors would create a wedge effect as they pancaked to the floors below, exerting lateral stresses the building was not designed to take, particluarly given structural weakening from the shock of the initial impact. So the temperatures necessary to cause the steel to fail only had to occur above the well-aerated floors from the impact site and above, where heat from the actual open fire was rising and pooling in the upper floors.

Again, I'm not going to convince a true believer even if I can explain every alleged anomoly. There are some parts of the evidence in favor of an unaided collapse that I have problems with myself, which is why I will not take a stance here as to what I think happened, though I have offered suggestions previously. But the eveidence provided for this particualr theory involving alleged thermite charges does not pass the smell test. When somone hits on one of the problems with the official government story that actually doesn't hold up, maybe we will make some headway in narrowing the possibilities. I'll even give you a hint as to a question that cannot be plausibly answered by the official account that attributes the collapse to structural failure: look at the collapse times.

I'll even give you a hint as to a question that cannot be plausibly answered by the official account that attributes the collapse to structural failure: look at the collapse times.

You must be psychic, Crocket.

That was going to be my next question.

Free fall speed means that the lower floors provided NO resistance to the collapse. I'm no engineer but somehow I don't think that's possible.

As for Bush, I consider him to be a bad President in most ways, a VERY bad President in many ways, and a fairly decent President in a few ways. For example, his tax cuts saved this country from sliding into a depression, which is what would have happened if we had followed the Democrat party line and raised taxes as we did after the 1929 market crash, prompting the onset of the Great Depression. Bush has taken a principled stand against taxpayer funding of morally offensive research and has wisely pushed for increased domestic oil production. I happen to support the general idea of a global war against Islamic extremism, though I have some problems with the way that this war is being prosecuted.

Don't forget about the biggest deficit in American history and the debt we owe China. We will never recover without raising taxes on something. Probably on something that the poor needs for survival. Hope he stops spending money we do not have.

If this was an inside job and the President knew about it in advance, my biggest question would be, why?

Originally Posted by dyehard39

If this was an inside job and the President knew about it in advance, my biggest question would be, why?

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time
Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended
our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost
forty years."

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a
world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national
auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Quote by:

David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Date:

June 1991 Baden, Germany
Source:

Bilderberger Meeting, Baden, Germany

"This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Quote by:

David Rockefeller
(1915- ) Internationalist billionaire, CFR kingpin, founder of the Trilateralist Commission, World Order Godfather
Source:

Sept. 23, 1994

Hope that answers your question, dyehard...