Thread: The lid is OFF 9/11/01!!!

Pinestrawguys...I am sorry too. I have no intention of offending you or anyone else here. I am not opposed to anyone changing my mind, I am just trying to get a handle on what some of you are trying to say. Why would our government do these things on purpose?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The wings were not "repelled." They folded and were carried into the breach. The wing root would have pulled the wings along with the airframe. At those velocities and with those forces, the aluminum would react the same way it would react if you folded up a little plane out of aluminum foil and pulled it through a keyhole. The explosion of the fuel would have kicked some of the material back out of the breach, which would account for the debris on the lawn.

I'm sorry Crocket, as much as I respect your intelligence I'm having a VERY hard time swallowing this.

Nothing I can do about that. All I can do is deliver the facts as they exist.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

As for the fasteners, I don't have to "show" you anything. It's simple physics. The small components such as fasteners are less capable of dissipating heat by conduction. The relevant portion of the fastener is the thread. While a beam must distort to the point that it either places critical forces on other members or else must actually fail itself, all that must fail on a fastener are the relatively small threads. Furthermore, the manner in which threads are cut creates natural stress points susceptible to shear forces. If you don't like my explanation, go ask another engineer.

While I don't have a degree in engineering, it doesn't take one to know that rivets and welds have NO THREADS to weaken, and conductive heat is passed through to any abutting surface, allowing it's temperature to rise NO HIGHER than the surrounding metal. A good engineer will also tell you that pound for pound, rivets and welds hold MORE tensile strength than the materials they join together.

Pinestraw, skyscrapers have not used rivets for many decades. They use high tensile bolts. Don't take my word for it, ask around or read up on modern fabrication techniques. The WTC did not use rivets. Follow this link, paying particular attention to sections B.3.2 and B.3.3. I don't just make this stuff up.

Originally Posted by PinstrawGuys

As for the arson thing, I don't give a rat's arse whether you like my sources or not, and I'm not going to try to dig up an obscure series of articles from fifteen years ago, before the internet was being used as a primary news source. I resent your impugning my integrity, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Look, you are a self-described landscaper, while I am an engineer with a physics background. I have a better handle on the properties of metals under heat and stress than you do, and I am not inclined to attempt to prove to you something when you seem to demonstrating a resistance to anything that counters your premise.

Crocket, you've never had a problem providing a source for your arguments before. You've never had a problem requesting sources from others. For you to 'take umbrage' at my request for sources seems a little bit disingenuous. You may be 'an engineer with a physics background' as opposed to a 'self-described landscaper', but your supposed intellectual superiority must be demonstrated before it can be assumed. Don't think because I'm a Pinestraw Guy that I didn't attend and enjoy college, or that I'm at some sort of intellectual disadvantage when addressing you. You're beginning to sound like Neese.

PSG, not everything is available on the internet. You are the one who made an unsubstantiated statement, which was the absurd claim that no steel framed building had ever failed due to fire. I simply provided some cases that I know about from my own experience. Take your own time educating yourself on this issue. I'm answering these in between trying to finish a series of drawings that I will be working on until early morning. Sorry, but I don't have time for your taunts.

Originally Posted by PinstrawGuys

For example, not only have I described how the effects at the Pentagon crash site would have occurred, someone else has posted an article that pretty much said the exact same thing. Rather than accept expert opinions, you keep offering trying to find sematic workarounds to invalidate the existing facts.

Now your claiming to be an 'expert', and injecting your opinions as 'facts'. I never wanted to start a fight with this thread, but it's starting to look like we're going to have one. Your theory of 'suitcase nukes' seems to me to be another false flag run up the pole to see if anyone salutes.

It's like the PTB(Powers That Be) realize that all their double-shuffle bullchit of the last 5 years ain't gettin' bought, and the spinmeisters are looking for something that will jibe with the known facts and still somehow make the administration look good, or at least not quite so culpable. You yourself brought up that possibility a page or so ago.

Crocket, I've got a lot of respect for you, and have always enjoyed reading what you've had to say. I don't know why I've ended up on your hit list, but can only assume that I've come down on the wrong side of a subject you're passionate about. What bewilders me is that I've not accused anyone of anything in this thread, GWB included. I've simply asked some questions that certain people would prefer didn't get asked.

I'm beginning to think you might work for those people.

Yeah, when you start accusing ME of being an accomplice, you definitely are starting to sound nutty as a fruitcake. I expressed my OPINION, but I am also an engineer, meaning that my opinion carries more weight than the musings of a shrubbery expert. What I cited as EVIDENCE (not PROOF, as you claim) was the article provided by another poster from Snopes. You simply don't seem to want to hear anything that refutes your entrenched position. I'm also going to have to call bullstuff on your earlier claim that you have not expressed an opinion. You are CLEARLY defending an opinion that you hold, and you are doing so with some degree of stridency, to the extent that you are now attempting to pick fights with both Neese and myself by repeatedly mischaracterizing what we have written.

We have reached the point that there is no benefit to continuing this discussion with you. Maybe after you chill out a bit you will re-read some of what has been written and take some time to consider its legitimacy. But you can take your claims that I am working on behalf of this damned administration and shove it where the pinestraw shouldn't go.

I am sooo tired of the rhetoric. I am a common man who needs proof of claims. And silly me I thought physics, and mathematics were important, silly me. According to studies by well respected physicists, not employed by the government, regardless of the variables plugged into the formula, it is impossible for the collapse to have taken place, given the "evidence" supplied.

The freedom of information act has brought to light many conspiracies perpetrated by the United States Government. Secret Bombings, Assignations, ECT. Government involvement in illegal activities is FACT not fiction.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that 5 of the hijackers were trained at US military bases, as reported by Newsweek in 2005. The Pentagon denied the claims, stating that those trained had similar names but were not the hijackers. NO PROOF mind you, not once has our government supplied any information to prove THEIR CLAIM. Rummy always was a dismissive type.

This attack allowed the most sweeping infringement of the Constitutional RIGHTS of American Citizens. Secret searches, secret wiretapping, strip searches, this all in name of security. Security, the same people refuse to secure our border, but they want me to accept warrant less searches?

Those within the elected government (appointees) are the ones that need to be looked at, elected officials would not be privy to the details. The Oliver North’s, G. Gordon Liddy's, would be the type involved.

Now if you add to the mix Corporations, specifically those that have profited from this attack and the resulting invasion of a country that was in no way involved, then the theory of an inside job starts to make sense.

Too many coincidences to list here connect many in the administration to the profiteering. Have you all forgotten the 9-11 hearing? A Cheney advisor testified that the VP was getting immediate info on the pentagon plane while it was 50 miles out. 50 miles out...30 miles out...

The World Trade Center already hit twice, confirmation of another yet no action taken against the plane bearing down on the heart of our military.
No proof of anything, yet if a man hesitates when facing attack should not be in any position of power. The fact that his options in Halliburton have increased from $833,000.00 to over 20 million is also proof of nothing, however we are approaching the point when most citizens would be brought in front of a grand jury.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, These and many more have served in presidential administrations since 1976. Advisors who PUBLISHED a report of the necessity of invading Iraq 15 years ago. When one speaks of government conspiracies look under the surface. Elected officials are like actors; those behind the scenes (Karl Rove) are the managers, the ones who truly set policy.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the attack of our country; the attack was the excuse to implement a plan hatched years earlier.

The owner of WTC was going to have to spend 20 billion dollars to replace the aluminum outer shell. Though many will say this is another reason the towers collapsed, but to dismiss the possible motive of profit is ridiculous.

Selling airlines short...Someone knew something, and it wasn’t the hijackers.

There is little doubt that there is so much more to the attack, and as terrifying as it might be to fathom, the evidence is overwhelming.

The real attack is on us and our freedoms, and this means the terrorists have already won. And those within our government DEFINTELY KNEW AND CONSPIRED TO PASS THE PATRIOT ACT.

TO FIGHT TERRORISM IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE UP SOME RIGHTS? WHAT ARE THE TERRORISTS GIVING UP?

Again, the borders are still wide open, how is that protecting us?


[/b]

Originally Posted by CommonGeorge

I am sooo tired of the rhetoric. I am a common man who needs proof of claims. And silly me I thought physics, and mathematics were important, silly me. According to studies by well respected physicists, not employed by the government, regardless of the variables plugged into the formula, it is impossible for the collapse to have taken place, given the "evidence" supplied.

The freedom of information act has brought to light many conspiracies perpetrated by the United States Government. Secret Bombings, Assignations, ECT. Government involvement in illegal activities is FACT not fiction.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that 5 of the hijackers were trained at US military bases, as reported by Newsweek in 2005. The Pentagon denied the claims, stating that those trained had similar names but were not the hijackers. NO PROOF mind you, not once has our government supplied any information to prove THEIR CLAIM. Rummy always was a dismissive type.

This attack allowed the most sweeping infringement of the Constitutional RIGHTS of American Citizens. Secret searches, secret wiretapping, strip searches, this all in name of security. Security, the same people refuse to secure our border, but they want me to accept warrant less searches?

Those within the elected government (appointees) are the ones that need to be looked at, elected officials would not be privy to the details. The Oliver North’s, G. Gordon Liddy's, would be the type involved.

Now if you add to the mix Corporations, specifically those that have profited from this attack and the resulting invasion of a country that was in no way involved, then the theory of an inside job starts to make sense.

Too many coincidences to list here connect many in the administration to the profiteering. Have you all forgotten the 9-11 hearing? A Cheney advisor testified that the VP was getting immediate info on the pentagon plane while it was 50 miles out. 50 miles out...30 miles out...

The World Trade Center already hit twice, confirmation of another yet no action taken against the plane bearing down on the heart of our military.
No proof of anything, yet if a man hesitates when facing attack should not be in any position of power. The fact that his options in Halliburton have increased from $833,000.00 to over 20 million is also proof of nothing, however we are approaching the point when most citizens would be brought in front of a grand jury.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, These and many more have served in presidential administrations since 1976. Advisors who PUBLISHED a report of the necessity of invading Iraq 15 years ago. When one speaks of government conspiracies look under the surface. Elected officials are like actors; those behind the scenes (Karl Rove) are the managers, the ones who truly set policy.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the attack of our country; the attack was the excuse to implement a plan hatched years earlier.

The owner of WTC was going to have to spend 20 billion dollars to replace the aluminum outer shell. Though many will say this is another reason the towers collapsed, but to dismiss the possible motive of profit is ridiculous.

Selling airlines short...Someone knew something, and it wasn’t the hijackers.

There is little doubt that there is so much more to the attack, and as terrifying as it might be to fathom, the evidence is overwhelming.

The real attack is on us and our freedoms, and this means the terrorists have already won. And those within our government DEFINTELY KNEW AND CONSPIRED TO PASS THE PATRIOT ACT.

TO FIGHT TERRORISM IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE UP SOME RIGHTS? WHAT ARE THE TERRORISTS GIVING UP?

Again, the borders are still wide open, how is that protecting us?


[/b]

Right off a consipracy site. I doubt that you would know physics if it bit you in the arse. But humor us, please. Rather than claiming there is evidence, perhaps you will actually provide some of your incontrovertible evidence. Then perhaps you will take the results of the official investigation point by point and tell us where the math fails...

The Name calling starts.. stay tuned kids. Of course I only expect the liberal professors comment when I supply the link. I have researched this since 2001 and never commented until last week.

For someone claiming to have so much knowledge CG, why don't YOU supply evidence of your claims? Independent evidence, not governemnt studies, or commissions that totally ignored the WTC 7 collapse.

Cassie?

Originally Posted by CommonGeorge

The Name calling starts.. stay tuned kids. Of course I only expect the liberal professors comment when I supply the link. I have researched this since 2001 and never commented until last week.

For someone claiming to have so much knowledge CG, why don't YOU supply evidence of your claims? Independent evidence, not governemnt studies, or commissions that totally ignored the WTC 7 collapse.

Here ya' go... REAL SCIENCE by REAL ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS, not the nonsense trumped up by some conspiracy site:

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/disp ... m?uid=1057

The full reports are available with a simple websearch.

I note that you didn't bother to provide one iota of the claimed evidence you touted. Where is it?

Originally Posted by CommonGeorge

The Name calling starts.. stay tuned kids. Of course I only expect the liberal professors comment when I supply the link. I have researched this since 2001 and never commented until last week.

For someone claiming to have so much knowledge CG, why don't YOU supply evidence of your claims? Independent evidence, not governemnt studies, or commissions that totally ignored the WTC 7 collapse.

Hmmmmmm!

Dixie

Originally Posted by Neese

Cassie?

Quite possibly...

Neese, do you notice how all these guys can offer is wild conjecture based on extremely limited knowledge of metal fatigue factors and in one case not even realizing that modern skyscrapers like the WTC use bolts, not rivets? In the mean time, reports by the ASCE - real engineers - are utterly ignored.

And for the record, I am not saying that there were irregularities in what happened. I just take issue with the notion that amateur sleuths with no engineering backgrounds and who often don't even understand what they're reading are going to figure out the mystery. What's most annoying is that when you provide sound reasons that a given "clue" is just a red herring, they get all upset and accuse you of complicity. The galling part is that Americans at large have become so lazy that they won't (or can't) do the math themselves, but are so arrogant that they refuse to accept what they don't know.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Originally Posted by CommonGeorge

The Name calling starts.. stay tuned kids. Of course I only expect the liberal professors comment when I supply the link. I have researched this since 2001 and never commented until last week.

For someone claiming to have so much knowledge CG, why don't YOU supply evidence of your claims? Independent evidence, not governemnt studies, or commissions that totally ignored the WTC 7 collapse.

Hmmmmmm!

Dixie

You caught that too?

Common George
joined: Mar 05, 2007