1665 replies to this topic

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 14 January 2013 - 12:09 AM, said:

I got 23 minutes in...then realized that their were much better things to be doing than listening to wild-eyed speculation. As frenat said, tell me when they mention the rain of concrete.

Well, at least you gave it a shot.  Just so you know, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.  I am just not convinced that what we were told is exactly the truth.
This video doesn't really prove anything.  But..when I watch those buildings come down...I'm just left with a genuine wtf feeling that hasn't gone away in 12 years.
Sky posted a video about the Vernage Effect that they use in France.  Good stuff.  Very informative.  And I can see how that could have been the case.  But it still leaves me wondering how...why...?  And not just the buildings coming down...the decade after has left more questions open than it has answered.

[Coffey]

Hasina, on 13 January 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Now here's the thing for me, if I'm not to trust the government, why trust one man because of his fancy credentials. I will say I'll take his word more so over my own, I don't know if someone could or couldn't do it, if he says it couldn't be done then I defer to him because of his experience in that field. If other professionals also want to have their say, with their own data, with their own credentials, I'll also read and listen, because I have no first hand experience in this. There's no credibility in the world of conspiracies, IMO.

I see it this way. What does he have to gain from this? Nothing, he has no books to sell, he hasn't made any money from this and he has even suffered for it. The government has blocked him from being able to get work as a pilot and he was even removed from wikipedia. lol Why would they remove him from wikipedia? lol

What does the government gain from this? A very long list.

There is different theories on this whole thing, but in the simplest form, if the government themselves did it, they sure as hell let it happen without trying to stop it.

There is loads of evidence that shows they knew it was coming.

Also if Al Qaeda really did it and the US government really meant what they said in all those speeches etc then why did they support Al Qaeda in Libya and help them overthrow Gaddafi, giving them their own country. Same thing is now happening with Syria. Surely if the Government really cared for the people they wouldn't support Al Qaeda in anyway?!

The fact is Al Qaeda is their creation (proven fact) which they use.

[Q24]

Coffey, on 14 January 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

The fact is Al Qaeda is their creation (proven fact) which they use.

Absolutely – this has been demonstrated by historical events, CIA/Western/Al Qaeda double agents, CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, FBI whistleblowers and even noted by bin Laden.  The very concept of Al Qaeda as a coherent terrorist 'organisation' was created in the U.S. court and bin Laden alluded it a Western term that he does not specifically identify with.  I can provide reliable source material in support of all this.  I think it no coincidence that large majority of the 9/11 hijackers (15 of the 19) were not the lifelong, diehard Jihadists we would perhaps expect, but actually Western adapted citizens who presented themselves at bin Laden’s doorstep only in the year or two prior the attack... it was a setup/entrapment.  It surprises many to know that an element of the CIA were well aware of at least two of the future hijackers (2 of the 4 not alluded to above), the terrorist connections and danger they posed and their residence in the U.S. long before 9/11, yet actively and persistently over a period of months prevented law enforcement action against them despite FBI protestation – now why might the CIA protect terrorists like that?  This isn’t ‘conspiracy’ material, it’s FBI testimony, congressional record, commented on by Senators and former politicians and even contained in part in the 9/11 Commission report.  It’s quite an extensive background topic to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers of which too many are unaware (mainstream news outlets understandably quiet, preferring their witch-hunt in support of U.S. foreign policies).

[Coffey]

Q24, on 14 January 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Absolutely – this has been demonstrated by historical events, CIA/Western/Al Qaeda double agents, CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, FBI whistleblowers and even noted by bin Laden.  The very concept of Al Qaeda as a coherent terrorist 'organisation' was created in the U.S. court and bin Laden alluded it a Western term that he does not specifically identify with.  I can provide reliable source material in support of all this.  I think it no coincidence that large majority of the 9/11 hijackers (15 of the 19) were not the lifelong, diehard Jihadists we would perhaps expect, but actually Western adapted citizens who presented themselves at bin Laden’s doorstep only in the year or two prior the attack... it was a setup/entrapment.  It surprises many to know that an element of the CIA were well aware of at least two of the future hijackers (2 of the 4 not alluded to above), the terrorist connections and danger they posed and their residence in the U.S. long before 9/11, yet actively and persistently over a period of months prevented law enforcement action against them despite FBI protestation – now why might the CIA protect terrorists like that?  This isn’t ‘conspiracy’ material, it’s FBI testimony, congressional record, commented on by Senators and former politicians and even contained in part in the 9/11 Commission report.  It’s quite an extensive background topic to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers of which too many are unaware (mainstream news outlets understandably quiet, preferring their witch-hunt in support of U.S. foreign policies).

Well even Hillary Clinton confirmed it in a live TV interview. lol

You should post some stuff though, for some weird reason people still don't believe it even after Hillary stating it. lol

[Little Fish]

joc, on 14 January 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

Well, at least you gave it a shot.  Just so you know, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist.  I am just not convinced that what we were told is exactly the truth.
This video doesn't really prove anything.  But..when I watch those buildings come down...I'm just left with a genuine wtf feeling that hasn't gone away in 12 years.
Sky posted a video about the Vernage Effect that they use in France.  Good stuff.  Very informative.  And I can see how that could have been the case.  But it still leaves me wondering how...why...?  And not just the buildings coming down...the decade after has left more questions open than it has answered.

verinage always collapses from the middle, there is as much mass at the top crushing the mass below. the nroth tower, the tp 10% was supposed to have crushed the bottom 90%, there is a measurable jolt in the verinage demolitions which even bazant says is required fro crush down. there was no jolt with the north tower.

[Q24]

Little Fish, on 14 January 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

verinage always collapses from the middle, there is as much mass at the top crushing the mass below. the nroth tower, the tp 10% was supposed to have crushed the bottom 90%, there is a measurable jolt in the verinage demolitions which even bazant says is required fro crush down. there was no jolt with the north tower.

Yes, because the upper 10% was not in fact an indestructible block crushing all the way through the lower 90% as the official theory tells (a nonsense according to Newton’s law of equal and opposite forces), it was actually falling through demolished structure.

Everyone should consider, of all the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris from all three buildings, not one single piece of physical evidence/steelwork recovered by the official investigation showed fire temperatures had weakened the steel.  There are official reports and expert testimony which demonstrate this.  There were however samples of steelwork showing, “a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”, which the FEMA report suggested was, “possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse” and required a “detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon” that never came.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 January 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

There were however samples of steelwork showing, "a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting", which the FEMA report suggested was, "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse" and required a "detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon" that never came.

On the contrary, Sisson and Biederman, two of the three original investigators, carried out further studies and concluded:
the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed
http://link.springer...X129006?LI=true

Edited by flyingswan, 14 January 2013 - 02:38 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

No, that is not what it means. I give more credence to evidence from qualified sources because...uh...they're....QUALIFIED. That was the word I was looking for.

If you've read the Republic, you'd realize that Socrates is in complete agreement with that. You, apparently, have not.

EDIT: Dug up a relevant passage. From Book 1.



AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

And what exactly is it that makes the government qualified?  Especially when its story cannot withstand scrutiny?

Socrates Sr. Would be most disappointed in you.  Placing great value on the statements of known liars is NOT a rational practice.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

My own heart and soul are not going to give me anything more than an opinion. My intellect, however...

Better leave this here too.

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017

This too.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Curious about WTC 7? Better read this.

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=861610

So, in conclusion, I have answers. I just gave them to you. You obviously read nothing of what I linked. You're just using "your own heart and soul", and not thinking critically.

And taking the words of the government at face value, when the evidence contradicts those statements, IS thinking critically?

OMG, you have your namesake rolling in his grave!

[socrates.junior]

Babe...I don't know what to say. This nebulous "government" that you reference...what exactly do you mean? Every single engineer involved in the report? The Canadian academic who isn't even connected to the American government?

If you want to call them known liars, by all means, point out physical impossibilities in their reports. But until then, saying something doesn't make it so.

I know you like pointing out that Socrates would have done this or that, but let's be real. First, I'm the Junior, so I have some issues with my parent. Second of all, I, right now, am doing exactly what he said. I'm not trusting your nebulous "government", but the words of many engineers.

EDIT: You said the evidence contradicts the statements. How? By all means, feel free to refute the reports. Any of them.

Edited by socrates.junior, 14 January 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 January 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Absolutely – this has been demonstrated by historical events, CIA/Western/Al Qaeda double agents, CIA infiltration of Al Qaeda, FBI whistleblowers and even noted by bin Laden.

During a raid in Manila, a document revealed that the CIA was a target of al-Qaeda, and that was before the 911 attacks, and in fact, the terrorist planned to fly an airplane into the headquarters of the CIA, Now, that doesn't sound like a very close relationship. In addition, the CIA is responsible for taking out much of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda.

To recap, al-Qaeda had a plan to attack the CIA at its headquarters with an airplane and the CIA has been taking out the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and you implied that the CIA and al-Qaeda are good partners?! Time to face reality.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 04:27 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 January 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Everyone should consider, of all the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris from all three buildings, not one single piece of physical evidence/steelwork recovered by the official investigation showed fire temperatures had weakened the steel.

Apparently, you are mistaken. Check it out.




Investigators concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. That was evident when the WTC buildings began to bunkle minutes before their collapse. Check it out.

Quote

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/


Science Daily
Science News

“Like most building collapses, these events were the result of a combination of factors,” said Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the agency’s building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster. “While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled.”

http://www.scienceda...50411122017.htm


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse


Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking.

There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html


9/11 cops saw collapse coming

New York Daily News - June 19th, 2004

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown.
http://www.skyscrape...e_20040619.html


NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

Fire and gravity, not explosives nor thermite,had brought down the WTC buildings.

Quote

There are official reports and expert testimony which demonstrate this.  There were however samples of steelwork showing, “a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting”, which the FEMA report suggested was, “possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse” and required a “detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon” that never came.

False! This is what the article really said.

Quote

Sisson and Biederman, two of the three original investigators, carried out further studies and concluded:

The analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed

In regards to high temperatures after the collapse, I have mentioned several times the temperatures were the result of extothermic reactions and nothing to do with thermite because hot steel will continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions while exposed to air causing iron to increase its temperature.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 January 2013 - 05:31 PM.

[joc]

Quote

Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking.

There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Okay, now you please tell me and everyone else...how exactly it is that plaster and windows were damaged in the lobby of a building when the initial damage was 70+ stories up!?  Could it be that the numerous reports of explosions at the base of the building had anything to do with that?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

And taking the words of the government at face value, when the evidence contradicts those statements, IS thinking critically?

May I add that many of the investigators were not government employees.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 January 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

During a raid in Manila, a document revealed that the CIA was a target of al-Qaeda, and that was before the 911 attacks, and in fact, the terrorist planned to fly an airplane into the headquarters of the CIA, Now, that doesn't sound like a very close relationship. In addition, the CIA is responsible for taking out much of the senior leadership of al-Qaeda.

To recap, al-Qaeda had a plan to attack the CIA at its headquarters with an airplane and the CIA has been taking out the senior leadership of al-Qaeda and you implied that the CIA and al-Qaeda are good partners?! Time to face reality.

the cia had infiltrated the "conference" regarding the planning of bojinka. they had the place under surveillance. they knew about it in real time, read nafeez ahmed's book, war on truth.

P2OG