I want A debunker to try to Debunk this

[Sunofone]

No, that's another claim that is not supported by the evidence.

huh?

when you pay someone a million dollars to fabricate a sting operation and the person then records you ordering real explosives to be used instead of substituting it with fake explosives as planned and you work for the fbi then how exactly do you interpret that???

google "john anticev"

[Space Commander Travis]

http://wtc.nist.gov this is all you need to see. This is a government website that they can say anything they want about.

google .gov websites and this is what you get. ".gov: Home page of the US Government's Official Web Portal for all government transactions, services, and information. It provides direct online access ..."

By that argument, nothing any government source ever says would be believed... so the conspiracy theorists have a perfect argument, one they can never lose, don't they? "The government can say anything they want on their websites: we don't believe any of them." So you can never lose; anything any official source says that contradicts you, you'll just ignore.

[Sunofone]

By that argument, nothing any government source ever says would be believed... so the conspiracy theorists have a perfect argument, one they can never lose, don't they? "The government can say anything they want on their websites: we don't believe any of them." So you can never lose; anything any official source says that contradicts you, you'll just ignore.

no its more like not trusting the fox to guard the hen

[Space Commander Travis]

what? like the facts you have confused about molten steel?? or the fact that the towers fell at freefall speed which can only be explained with the use of explosives which there is ample cooberating evidence of-- yes terrorists but of the military industrial type-- bin laden was cia-- he lived in false church,VA for a while right by the cia headquarters-- the first attack n thw wtc in 93' was orchestrated by the fbi the facts speak for themselves!!

Wait... is this a breakthrough I see before me? Is this almost an answer to the question I asked earlier?

Just a thought that's occurred to me from time to time: now, supposing that the conspiracy theory is true for a moment. Who was it done by? The Bush adminsitration? or the NWO and/or the Illuminati or any of the other various secret world government theories? I just wonder if someone might be able to clarify that point for me?

So, then; Bin Laden was working for the CIA and/or FBI (who seem to be interchangeable) ... and it was in the pipeline as far back as 1993 or earlier... so in other words, then, it wasn't Bush that was behind it? It was, in fact, the shadowy shadow goverment/CIA/illuminati/Military Industrial Complex.

So Bush wasn't to blame for it then...

well, thank you for clearing that up.

[Sunofone]

CIA/Military Industrial Complex.

So Bush wasn't to blame for it then...

well, thank you for clearing that up.

well actually a simple check would verify that bush sr was in charge of the cia and indeed is one of the top three owners of the one of the highest profitting defense contract group known as "the carlyle group" along with the queen of england and bin laden's dad-- not to mention that bush's grandfather prescott bush actually had millions of dollars seized for financing hitler due to the trading with the enemy act

[Space Commander Travis]

Thank you for that. It answers a lot of questions.

[Obviousman]

huh?

when you pay someone a million dollars to fabricate a sting operation and the person then records you ordering real explosives to be used instead of substituting it with fake explosives as planned and you work for the fbi then how exactly do you interpret that???

google "john anticev"

You seem to be confused, because you are changing your story. What you said was:

...the first attack n thw wtc in 93' was orchestrated by the fbi the facts speak for themselves!!

(my bolding)

The FBI became aware of the plan, but they bungled stopping it. They did NOT orchestrate the bombing.

[Space Commander Travis]

And surely, a sting operation is a completely different thing to deliberately planning the murder of thousands. Like 'Operation Northwoods', which is often quoted as an example of the lengths that the US government would go to: that only ever talked about faking hijacks or terrorist acts; that, too, is on a completely different scale, I'd have thought.

but then, what do i know.

[Undeadskeptic]

I am inclined to consult that greatest of oracles, South Park:

1 out of 4 Americans believe the government is lying about what happened on 9/11, are you calling 1 out of 4 Americans ret***ds?

If 1 out of 4 Americans believe the government is lying about 9/11, then yes, I am calling 1 out of 4 Americans ret**ds.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Undeadskeptic

[xCrimsonx]

I am inclined to consult that greatest of oracles, South Park:

1 out of 4 Americans believe the government is lying about what happened on 9/11, are you calling 1 out of 4 Americans ret***ds?

If 1 out of 4 Americans believe the government is lying about 9/11, then yes, I am calling 1 out of 4 Americans ret**ds.

lol

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

By that argument, nothing any government source ever says would be believed... so the conspiracy theorists have a perfect argument, one they can never lose, don't they? "The government can say anything they want on their websites: we don't believe any of them." So you can never lose; anything any official source says that contradicts you, you'll just ignore.

I want an honest answer from you for this question.

If NIST truly believed that the towers were brought down by CD and were fully going to publish it in a report. Do you honestly believe that the government would let that get published? Let alone by an appointed agency in there control?

Seriously......

[MID]

Thats all well and good MID but what are you qualifications to speak on this subject without sighting sources. As you said in your post your not a structural engineer, so regurgitating others people ideas and opinions does not mean they are factual. Prophet eh?

What sources?

I expressed my own logically derived conclusions, and illustrated that I in fact had anticipated such an occurrance at the time. I don't need a source for that. It's me.

If your asking for sources which corroborate it...you've got to be kidding. All the analysis that's been presented herein, by professionals in the field, you know that stuff you don't want to believe?

Please.

[flyingswan]

I want an honest answer from you for this question.

If NIST truly believed that the towers were brought down by CD and were fully going to publish it in a report. Do you honestly believe that the government would let that get published? Let alone by an appointed agency in there control?

Seriously......

Check the list of authors of the NIST report - they weren't just government employees, they included lots of outside experts. Do you think they would have risked bringing in these people if they had something to hide? Also check for non-US technical articles on the collapses. Engineers in China even have no problem with the collapses.

Now look at the US Government report into the Challenger disaster - the cause clearly with the management of NASA, a US government agency.

[Space Commander Travis]

I want an honest answer from you for this question.

If NIST truly believed that the towers were brought down by CD and were fully going to publish it in a report. Do you honestly believe that the government would let that get published? Let alone by an appointed agency in there control?

Seriously......

The all purpose duck-out-of-it response, again. They (the Government) wouldn't let the Truth be Revealed.

So why do you conspiracy theorists always go on, and on, and on, about the reports, and all that, if you would never believe a word of them in any case?

I bet if it did say that the government had done it, you wouldn't believe it, because it was in an official report.

Oh dear, I haven't given an honest answer to the question, have I?

Shame, that. I rarely get any to mine, either.

[frenat]

Here's a site done by conspiracy theorists that says the towers took at least 14-16 seconds to fall and backs it up with video and photo evidence

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

[MID]

Uhm, it already has - several times over (to the extend of the precision we can create it with). It is really simple actually:

1. Steel loses structural integrity

2. A fault point occurs

3. A catastrophic collapse ensues.

The facts are all there. It is really very simple, to be quite honest. There is nothing mysterious in it whatsoever. It is the logical chain of events that would invariably occur.

Cheers,

Badeskov

It really is mind-boggling Bade, isn't it?

Conveying the essentially simple facts to people who are posessed of a CT mindset is so difficult.

Perhaps pointless.

A fault point occurred, through well understood means. Suddenly, a floor gave way, allowing between 45 and 50,000 t of mass to fall onto a floor below which could support approximately 5800 t. Of course the KE of that falling 50,000 t exceeds the load bearing capacity of the floor it's falling into by alot more than 7 or 8 times, and suddenly, we add another 4500 t of collapsed floor to the accelerating mass, which then impacts a floor below, which can only support 5800 t...and so on.

Poof.

And collapse is a good word for it. Imploding into itself is what happens with a hollow building which is about 95% air, and the vertical fall seems simple enough when one understands that the inertia of a 500,000 t building doesn't actually allow it to fall in any direction but nearly straight down.

We also completely understand that the fall of the towers was not at free fall. It took about 1.5-2 seconds longer than free fall time (at least...for the main mass of the structure), and impacted at a velocity which was estimated at ~ 2/3 the speed it would've at free fall. This too is well understood and utterly logical.

Basically, what occurred on 9-11-01 is perfectly understood, has been demonstrated after the fact, and can be simply explained to people (which it has) without requirement of advanced engineering education by the audience.

Of course, the effect of a pattern of sinister belief is another matter altogether--one which may render logical, simple explanations of the facts null and void, as we see here.

Edited June 21, 2008 by MID

[Q24]

A fault point occurred, through well understood means. Suddenly, a floor gave way, allowing between 45 and 50,000 t of mass to fall onto a floor below which could support approximately 5800 t. Of course the KE of that falling 50,000 t exceeds the load bearing capacity of the floor it's falling into by alot more than 7 or 8 times, and suddenly, we add another 4500 t of collapsed floor to the accelerating mass, which then impacts a floor below, which can only support 5800 t...and so on.

That sounds to me rather like the ‘pancake collapse’ theory that the official story originally promoted, MID. NIST themselves have dismissed this as nonsense. NIST FAQ: -

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The official collapse theory is that bowing trusses pulled in the Tower perimeter leading to failure and load transfers to the core columns, thus initiating ‘global collapse’. Yes, of course that theory is still untenable but just thought I would bring you up to speed. Any collapse mechanism must refer to failure of the main structural elements of the Towers, ie the 240 perimeter columns and 47 immense core columns, rather than the floors on their own.

[Q24]

I noticed there has been a bit of talk on the thread about weakening of steel in the Towers. Regarding this, I thought it may be of use to consider NIST’s own summary of metallurgical analysis of the Towers’ structural steel. NCSTAR 1-3C states: -

From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.

No evidence, eh? Is that not what so many people berate ‘conspiracy theories’ for? And yet here is a severe lack of evidence at the heart of the ‘official’ story. I do hope people are not going to display double standards over this.

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

It really is mind-boggling Bade, isn't it?

Conveying the essentially simple facts to people who are posessed of a CT mindset is so difficult.

Perhaps pointless.

A fault point occurred, through well understood means. Suddenly, a floor gave way, allowing between 45 and 50,000 t of mass to fall onto a floor below which could support approximately 5800 t. Of course the KE of that falling 50,000 t exceeds the load bearing capacity of the floor it's falling into by alot more than 7 or 8 times, and suddenly, we add another 4500 t of collapsed floor to the accelerating mass, which then impacts a floor below, which can only support 5800 t...and so on.

Poof.

And collapse is a good word for it. Imploding into itself is what happens with a hollow building which is about 95% air, and the vertical fall seems simple enough when one understands that the inertia of a 500,000 t building doesn't actually allow it to fall in any direction but nearly straight down.

We also completely understand that the fall of the towers was not at free fall. It took about 1.5-2 seconds longer than free fall time (at least...for the main mass of the structure), and impacted at a velocity which was estimated at ~ 2/3 the speed it would've at free fall. This too is well understood and utterly logical.

Basically, what occurred on 9-11-01 is perfectly understood, has been demonstrated after the fact, and can be simply explained to people (which it has) without requirement of advanced engineering education by the audience.

Of course, the effect of a pattern of sinister belief is another matter altogether--one which may render logical, simple explanations of the facts null and void, as we see here.

You obvious follow blindly whatever you read and will argue it till your blue in the face. The pancake theory has already been scrapped is not now what the official story says. You must have watched the 2004 PBS documentary showing the pancake collapse theory. Well since then its been dismissed. But I am sure you are going to type some long paragraph explaining that you did not mean that in your post.

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

I noticed there has been a bit of talk on the thread about weakening of steel in the Towers. Regarding this, I thought it may be of use to consider NIST’s own summary of metallurgical analysis of the Towers’ structural steel. NCSTAR 1-3C states: -

From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.

No evidence, eh? Is that not what so many people berate ‘conspiracy theories’ for? And yet here is a severe lack of evidence at the heart of the ‘official’ story. I do hope people are not going to display double standards over this.

Nice post, well this should shut everyone up in this thread regarding the "steel weakens at certain temperature thus the beams failed" argument. I believe Siara popped in the thread saying he or she was a welder and then good old MID praises he/she as an expert.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

That sounds to me rather like the ‘pancake collapse’ theory that the official story originally promoted, MID. NIST themselves have dismissed this as nonsense. NIST FAQ: -

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The official collapse theory is that bowing trusses pulled in the Tower perimeter leading to failure and load transfers to the core columns, thus initiating ‘global collapse’. Yes, of course that theory is still untenable but just thought I would bring you up to speed. Any collapse mechanism must refer to failure of the main structural elements of the Towers, ie the 240 perimeter columns and 47 immense core columns, rather than the floors on their own.

Exactly you beat me to it.

[Space Commander Travis]

Nice post, well this should shut everyone up in this thread regarding the "steel weakens at certain temperature thus the beams failed" argument. I believe Siara popped in the thread saying he or she was a welder and then good old MID praises he/she as an expert.

No, just that she had some knowledge of what she was talking about, I think he said.

Incdentally, who was behind it? Was it George W. Bush, or someone else? What were the planes that hit the buildings? And what did they do with the planes, if those weren't the original ones? I wish someone would tell me, instead of arguing endlessly about the temperature at which steel melts.

*edit* it was actually Jaylemurph, not MID, who said thus.

Edited June 21, 2008 by 747400

[MID]

You obvious follow blindly whatever you read and will argue it till your blue in the face. The pancake theory has already been scrapped is not now what the official story says. You must have watched the 2004 PBS documentary showing the pancake collapse theory. Well since then its been dismissed. But I am sure you are going to type some long paragraph explaining that you did not mean that in your post.

I am sure you're going to be able to explain to me how my description of the fall of the buildings somehow contradicts the physics of how a building falls?

The official collapse theory is that bowing trusses pulled in the Tower perimeter leading to failure and load transfers to the core columns, thus initiating ‘global collapse’. Yes, of course that theory is still untenable but just thought I would bring you up to speed. Any collapse mechanism must refer to failure of the main structural elements of the Towers, ie the 240 perimeter columns and 47 immense core columns, rather than the floors on their own.

Uh huh...so, what's different about that?

I described the collapse, which was utterly natural...you folks have diverted to the fault. So? Whichever theory is correct, the buildings collapsed. Understanding that is relatively simple. I merely echoed Bady's rather consice description.

There's nothing wierd about it.

That's the point.

Nothing suggests controlled demolition, which of course is where the prevalent idiocy actually leads.

9-11 CT's drive me nuts. They look for some untenable explanation of something that's clear.

Two airplanes, full of people, were flown nearly fully loaded with fuel into towers that couldn't have possibly been (and weren't) designed to endure such an impact for long, and they didn't. Over a billion pounds came crashing down in a matter of seconds, an unspeakable amount of energy, which of course caused amazing amounts of damage in the tightly packed space.

There were no bombs, no controlled demolition, no missiles, nothing which is not understood...just civilian airliners, and about 3,000 defenseless Americans killed in a cowardly fashion by an enemy who needs to be killed.

It doesn't get any more complex than that.

We know what happened. We probably understand exactly how from a technical standpoint, but that's irrelevant, save to those who will build the next set of skyscrapers in New York...and even they won't be able to design something to endure that sort of thing.

747400 said:

No, just that she had some knowledge of what she was talking about, I think he said.

That would be correct, but again, that's beside the point.

Incidentally, who was behind it? Was it George W. Bush, or someone else? What were the planes that hit the buildings? And what did they do with the planes, if those weren't the original ones? I wish someone would tell me, instead of arguing endlessly about the temperature at which steel melts.

That is the real point.

Unfortunately, the answers to those questions will undoubtedly illustrate the lunacy porvalent in these 9-11 CT discussions.

I wonder why I am even here...

(...of course, so does Enigma and Q24, I'm sure! This is because the rationality I tend to adhere to isn't acceptable to these folks, as they will undoubtedly spend their lives attempting to illustrate a nonsensical fantasy, rather than addressing the real problems that have resulted from what happened. Seems a tragic waste of time to me.)

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

No, just that she had some knowledge of what she was talking about, I think he said.

Incdentally, who was behind it? Was it George W. Bush, or someone else? What were the planes that hit the buildings? And what did they do with the planes, if those weren't the original ones? I wish someone would tell me, instead of arguing endlessly about the temperature at which steel melts.

*edit* it was actually Jaylemurph, not MID, who said thus.

It sounds like to me that you are on the verge of stepping over to the conspiracy side. No one is debating the planes that hit the buildings right now. There is alot of speculation at to what the planes were. If you look closely at the videos they do not look like a normal 767. It looks more like a "dummy" plane. As to were and what they did with the planes? I think you should watch the movie Loose change Final Cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk7htWPF874

4 parts take the time to watch it. Also FREAKIN WATCH THE VIDEO CLIP THIS THREAD WAS STARTED WITH!

[Enigma wrapped in a puzzle]

I am sure you're going to be able to explain to me how my description of the fall of the buildings somehow contradicts the physics of how a building falls?

Uh huh...so, what's different about that?

I described the collapse, which was utterly natural...you folks have diverted to the fault. So? Whichever theory is correct, the buildings collapsed. Understanding that is relatively simple. I merely echoed Bady's rather consice description.

There's nothing wierd about it.

That's the point.

Nothing suggests controlled demolition, which of course is where the prevalent idiocy actually leads.

9-11 CT's drive me nuts. They look for some untenable explanation of something that's clear.

Two airplanes, full of people, were flown nearly fully loaded with fuel into towers that couldn't have possibly been (and weren't) designed to endure such an impact for long, and they didn't. Over a billion pounds came crashing down in a matter of seconds, an unspeakable amount of energy, which of course caused amazing amounts of damage in the tightly packed space.

There were no bombs, no controlled demolition, no missiles, nothing which is not understood...just civilian airliners, and about 3,000 defenseless Americans killed in a cowardly fashion by an enemy who needs to be killed.

It doesn't get any more complex than that.

We know what happened. We probably understand exactly how from a technical standpoint, but that's irrelevant, save to those who will build the next set of skyscrapers in New York...and even they won't be able to design something to endure that sort of thing.

747400 said:

That would be correct, but again, that's beside the point.

That is the real point.

Unfortunately, the answers to those questions will undoubtedly illustrate the lunacy porvalent in these 9-11 CT discussions.

I wonder why I am even here...

(...of course, so does Enigma and Q24, I'm sure! This is because the rationality I tend to adhere to isn't acceptable to these folks, as they will undoubtedly spend their lives attempting to illustrate a nonsensical fantasy, rather than addressing the real problems that have resulted from what happened. Seems a tragic waste of time to me.)

Oh man I think it would be an unspeakable amount of justice if we learn that CD was for sure used. I would love to see MID fishtail out of that info coming out. And to address your post.... The point is you were backing an incorrect theory! Yes the building came down and of course that is what you are eluding to but you just spent two loooooong posts explaining how us simple minded idiots cannot comprehend common sense. Well you were wrong and yes it matters how they came down that is the whole point. Now I am sure you will push the NIST theory until someone else comes along and says they are wrong. Again I say you need to do more research before you post again and watch the movie I posted. And yes I do wonder why you come here and debate with us morons?