VeeshanVault

XunilTlatoani wrote:

Sendarie wrote:Something like this would take months of planning alone and so many man hours and logistics it is 100% non feasible. You would have to have TEAMS of men and a job this size would require so much material and equipment nevermind all the knotching and cutting torches would be needed to prepare the beams.
You dont just strap a charge onto a metal beam like that, fire it off and have it cut it in half. Thats not how it works.
Now assume there was no knotching. In that case the amount of material needed to level buildings of that size would have taken out half of the city if not more.

Yet the buildings could feasibly come down as cleanly as a controlled demolition just from the plane impacts and subsequent fire? Not to mention the third building that came down just as cleanly without taking a direct hit from a jet.

Hell, just look at the damage that the federal building in Oklahoma City sustained, and that didn't come down until they charged it with explosives to make it come down.

One difference with the OKC blast is that the "impact" was at the bottom of one side.

I haven’t watched the google vid yet, but I definitely will tonight!

If you have any questions about how the planes could possibly take down the towers, check out this DVD...

World Trade Center: Anatomy of a Collapse DVD


You can find it cheaper on Amazon or Overstock.

It originally aired late in 2001. The DVD came out sometime in 2002. It does an excellent job of explaining how the towers could collapse under the conditions experienced Sept 11 2001. It is very factual. In fact, it has been criticized as being a little too clinical and unemotional so soon after a tragedy of such magnitude. There were also a few really good interviews with the buildings chief architects and engineers in which they explained why they made some of the unusual choices in construction (unusual at the time of construction) that potentially caused the building to collapse from such a small explosion (relative to the mass of the building).

Jassun wrote:that potentially caused the building to collapse from such a small explosion (relative to the mass of the building).

Yeah, amazing that three buildings pancaked perfectly. Maybe they should just fly planes about to be retired into buildings from now on instead of hire companies to place all of those explosives.

Sounds like a magic bullet theory to me!

Well, you see, the plane impacted WTC1 and then made a 90 degree turn, exiting the south side of WTC1 and then proceeded to impact the north side of WTC2 whereupon it took the elevator up three floors and exited back out the same side it entered and bureid itself into Building Seven where it instantly vaporized save for the passport of one of the terrorists that was found on the street completely undamaged.

Interesting that 4 black boxes from the two planes vaporized eh? That's never happen in any other plane crash...even more interesting that men working at the site claim to have been with the group that found three of them.

Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four “black boxes” from the jetliners that struck the towers on 9/11 - contradicting the official account.

Both the independent 9/11 Commission and federal authorities continue to insist that none of the four devices - a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) from the two planes - were ever found in the wreckage.

But New York City firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a recent book -- self-published by several Ground Zero workers -- that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four.

His account is supported by a volunteer, Mike Bellone, whose efforts at Ground Zero have been chronicled in the New York Times and elsewhere. Bellone said assisted DeMasi and the agents and that saw a device that resembling a “black box” in the back of the firefighter’s ATV.

Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero. Federal aviation officials - blaming the massive devastation - have said the World Trade Center attacks seem to be the only major jetliner crashes in which the critical devices were never located.

A footnote to the 9/11 Commission Report issued this summer flatly states: “The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175” - the two planes that hit the Trade Center - “were not found.”

Wow man...vaporized...sure glad that passport showed up!

Paper > Four Indestructable Black Boxes

"Although investigators look for an entire black box, sometimes the only parts of the device that survive are the recorder's crash-survivable memory units (CSMU). THE CSMU IS ALMOST INDESTRUCTABLE. It is housed within a stainless-steel shell that contains titanium or aluminum and a high-temperature insulation of dry silica material."

"It is designed to withstand HEAT OF UP TO 2,000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT FOR ONE HOUR, salt water for at least 30 days, immersion in a variety of liquids such as jet fuel and lubricants, AND AN IMPACT OF 3,400 G's. By comparison, astronauts are typically exposed to up to six Gs during a shuttle takeoff."

Hey, I've been accused of being a neocon and worse but you've got to be blind as a bat to not question all sorts of things about the events of 911.

Winnow wrote:Paper > Four Indestructable Black Boxes

This might be proof that Paper > Rock!

Sendarie wrote:I'm confused. People actually think that we blew them up using explosives?
That cant be right. Noone is that naive/dumb/gullible.

I mean my god the man hours required to rig something like that, much less the thought of keeping it secret...well I guess if ...no I got nothing.

I'm just... winded I cant even believe there are people that would fall for something so ignorant. Its like those "plausible" things they do on mythbusters where you can see where the lesser intelligent people might believe there were some truth to an urban legend/myth but absoulely no practicality to it.

I absolutely agree.

Chmee wrote:

Sendarie wrote:I'm confused. People actually think that we blew them up using explosives?
That cant be right. Noone is that naive/dumb/gullible.

I mean my god the man hours required to rig something like that, much less the thought of keeping it secret...well I guess if ...no I got nothing.

I'm just... winded I cant even believe there are people that would fall for something so ignorant. Its like those "plausible" things they do on mythbusters where you can see where the lesser intelligent people might believe there were some truth to an urban legend/myth but absoulely no practicality to it.

I absolutely agree.

So do you have a problem with the man hours or are you saying that it's impossible that placed explosives were used? There's a difference.

I could care less how many man hours you think it would take. From the pictures can you say for sure that there is no way explosive charges were used?

OK.....so we are to believe that someone went inside these buildings and managed to place explosives and run wiring and electrical devices to detonate them in an exact sequence meant to blow them in the exact timing and order to collapse the building.

Now...not only do you want us to believe that, but you want us to believe that no one noticed them doing it. And you want us to believe that the impact and explosions and fires from a 747 hitting said building did not disturb a SINGLE one of those charges or the timing mechanisms that would have to be PERFECT in order to collaps a building in onitself.

Fine. When I see the Easter Bunny fucking Santa Claus in Atlantis, you have a deal.

Why no black boxes? Same reason they didn't find half the shit. A million tons of rock crashing down from 80 stories up tends to break things. They didn't find most of the bodies either. They were not all "vaporized". But they did get ground into nothing by the massive amounts of concrete and steels hitting the ground at that velocity.

Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.

Nice article here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

I don't want you to "believe" anything, I just wouldn't blow off any possibilities.

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center...

End of Newsday excerpt.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:OK.....so we are to believe that someone went inside these buildings and managed to place explosives and run wiring and electrical devices to detonate them in an exact sequence meant to blow them in the exact timing and order to collapse the building.

Now...not only do you want us to believe that, but you want us to believe that no one noticed them doing it. And you want us to believe that the impact and explosions and fires from a 747 hitting said building did not disturb a SINGLE one of those charges or the timing mechanisms that would have to be PERFECT in order to collaps a building in onitself.

Fine. When I see the Easter Bunny fucking Santa Claus in Atlantis, you have a deal.

Why no black boxes? Same reason they didn't find half the shit. A million tons of rock crashing down from 80 stories up tends to break things. They didn't find most of the bodies either. They were not all "vaporized". But they did get ground into nothing by the massive amounts of concrete and steels hitting the ground at that velocity.

LOL!

Saddam did it.

Winnow wrote:

Chmee wrote:

Sendarie wrote:I'm confused. People actually think that we blew them up using explosives?
That cant be right. Noone is that naive/dumb/gullible.

I mean my god the man hours required to rig something like that, much less the thought of keeping it secret...well I guess if ...no I got nothing.

I'm just... winded I cant even believe there are people that would fall for something so ignorant. Its like those "plausible" things they do on mythbusters where you can see where the lesser intelligent people might believe there were some truth to an urban legend/myth but absoulely no practicality to it.

I absolutely agree.

So do you have a problem with the man hours or are you saying that it's impossible that placed explosives were used? There's a difference.

I could care less how many man hours you think it would take. From the pictures can you say for sure that there is no way explosive charges were used?

While I think a lot of the 9/11 official line stinks to high heaven, the demolition theory of bringing down the towers reminds me of the "intelligent design" debate; "Ohh, I can't imagine that it's possible for a few floors of a building to spontaneously collapse just because you fly a 747 into it, and I can't see how the inertia of 20 stories of a building landing on the next floor would make that fall, and the next, and the next until you have a neat implosion like demolition, so it must have been explosive demolition, I've seen that before and understand it"

As to the list of quotes someone posted: given few hours and an Inverness phone book any idiot could come up with a list as comprehensive proving the existance of the Loch Ness Monster. Most of the links are long since dead and even if they did exist, it's impossible to actually verify the sources and/or be sure they're not just nutters like the Loch Ness crowd.

You just blow these facts off and accept the official line:

Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.

WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).

FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."

It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

I disagree with your analogy Zaelath. All I'm seeing from people here is that they don't believe explosives were placed, I don't see anything saying that the three buildings behaved exactly as if they were brought down by charges. You don't find the now defunct Security company that President Bush's brother and cousin were principals in even remotely worthy of raising an eyebrow along with "cabling upgrades" and bomb sniffing dogs being pulled days before? I don't find it totally impossible a scenario at all. I don't claim anything other than the official explanations for the collapse of all three buildings are extremely weak combined with plenty of missing evidence.

The best I can do at this point is consider the "official" explanation as one of many possibilities.

Can we please just agree that the buildings collapsed when Chuck Norris did the Mario stomp on them?

Winnow wrote:I don't want you to "believe" anything, I just wouldn't blow off any possibilities.

Why the hell not? You did. Did you see the DVD I linked before you started your blathering in your reply about some "magic bullet" theory? If you discount the possible explanation in that DVD without even viewing it, then you are a hypocrite.

The chief architect who designed the structure of the building would know more about the fundamental design flaws that may have caused this tragedy than some internet conspiracy theorists who presented mainly circumstantial evidence. Listen to what he has to say in DVD before you make your judgment, if you really "wouldn't just blow off any possibilities."

Winnow wrote:You just blow these facts off and accept the official line:

Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

Other "fires in steel-frame" buildings don't have massive impact damage, explosive damage, and then a jet-fuel fire before getting down to the burning the furnishings and fittings. It's not a valid comparison; even if the trade towers were engineered to be 'finely balanced' rather than the normal tendancy to over-engineer things.

The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.

I agree that the small fires visible from the outside of the building were not responsible for collapsing the towers... but that of course is not what you're saying.

WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).

FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."

This shows a startling ignorance of engineering principles, would you rather I hit you with a 1/2 inch cane or a 5x 1/4 inch canes?

Besides, FEMA is hardly what I'd call an expert in engineering or demolitions.

It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Agreed. And we all know that steel has 100% of it's normal strength right up until the point that it turns into a liquid!

I disagree with your analogy Zaelath. All I'm seeing from people here is that they don't believe explosives were placed, I don't see anything saying that the three buildings behaved exactly as if they were brought down by charges. You don't find the now defunct Security company that President Bush's brother and cousin were principals in even remotely worthy of raising an eyebrow along with "cabling upgrades" and bomb sniffing dogs being pulled days before? I don't find it totally impossible a scenario at all. I don't claim anything other than the official explanations for the collapse of all three buildings are extremely weak combined with plenty of missing evidence.

The best I can do at this point is consider the "official" explanation as one of many possibilities.

Well obviously you disagree, however I don't think a lot of the "scientific proof" served up passes close inspection, much as I don't think a lot of the official version of events passes the laugh test.

I found some interesting links for anyone who's interested.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html - Interesting interview with a guy called Dr Thomas Eager - MIT Professor Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems.. (Also has other interesting links)



Now for the argument against the official line:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


The official line:
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

Now, for my own view, disregarding what I have seen with my own eyes the explanations given seem fairly legitimate as to why the towers collapsed. Let's assume that they fell due to the floors imploding down on themselves and the Steel supports being considerably weakened. Just as it is a scientific fact that 1100 cannot melt steel, it is also a scientific fact that it can be considerably weakened at that temperature.

So, the towers collapsed and that was that. Let's forget the many eyewitness reports (even from the very firemen you hold in such high esteem) that there were anomalies in the reporting, such as explosions and bangs (for which there is plenty of evidence in the initial video posted on the thread).

But let's assume thats all a load of bollox and the Twin Towers just collapsed because 2 Boeings crashed into them.

It really doesn't begin to explain why building 7 collapsed. So let's have a look at some info pertaining to building 7.

Even the official line is ambiguous at best:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf (Chapter 5 - WTC 7)

Some stuff that may make more sense for someone else here to comment on: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

Obligatory conspiracy from your favourite news outlet:
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspi ... asp?id=255

Tbh, I don't know how much Diesel was in building 7, but I am suspicious of the truth about this building's collapse. Although tbh there could easily be a rational explanation, however, FEMA couldn't come up with one, which makes me wonder.

As for the video "Loose change" posted at first here; it provides some pretty compelling visual evidence for explosive squibs, at least in building 7. Watch for yourself, or don't, but don't start debunking it without even watching it, it makes you look stupid.

The unconcluded reports of the basement explosion in one of the Twin Towers is also suspicious.

Anyway, all in all, all the video showed me is that media and documentary's are a great way to influence peoples opinion

For example, watching reputable outlets (I use this term very loosely) like Fox news, ABC and CNN reporting on explosions at the WTC very early on that day. Later news reports by these same stations failed to carry those initial reports.

I have to wonder why?

What is evident to me is that the current Administration must be very grateful that 911 happened, as it has more easily allowed them to control the US population by fear whilst giving them free reign to drive their ludicrous global vision further than they could have ever hoped possible. The extreme event allowed extremism to take hold.

What is probably the most shocking thing from an outsiders perspective (me anyway) is watching some of the people on this board who seem to take their Governments word on reactionary issues to 911 such as national security, personal freedom and war as gospel, wtf is up with that!

Anyone with half a fucking brain realises after WW2 that conflict is not the way forward and curtailing personal freedom is not something an open minded leading Democracy should be doing, regardless of the reasons some megalomanic immoral oil man from Texas gives.

However, since this sort of dictatorial bullshit has been going on in most of the richest countries in the world for decades it is now seen as the norm (look at the DeLay post on CE for proof of todays muted cynicism), the rule of logic is now more than ever seen as less important to the rule of political games, both nationally and internationally.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 911 highlighted a lot more than just Bin Laden's personal issue with the USA. The fact is, millions agreed and still agree with him (even if they don't agree with his way of showing it), for reasons the US must deal with NON MILITARILY if it wants to achieve a lasting peace and no more "911"'s. The subsequent reaction of the US after 911 has done nothing but inflame the situation. The people who die and suffer because of the US's stupid foreign policy are more often than not (ie 99%) no different than the people who died in the Twin Towers by the hands of Bin Laden.

Perpetually trying to fob off "mistakes" and bombing peoples heads off is simply not acceptable. It just isn't. No matter what you happen to think.

If you think it's ok to kill to spread your message, you are a fucking retard, and a Terrorist.

It's pretty saddening watching people here rage against Middle Eastern Terrorists whilst bandying about phrases like "let's nuke the middle east", "it's time for another war", or "fuck Muslims."

Yeah, great ideas Einsteins.

In my humble opinion, the media in England and the US has (with few exceptions) decided to run with the side of propoganda and stupid double think, for how long I don't even know. If people didn't get their news from Fox and spent a bit of time educating themselve and looked at lots of different points of view instead of spewing out "let's just kill em all", we wouldn't be in half the mess we are in now vis-a-vis "the war on terror".

But yeah, keep the partisan shitflinging retardfest going, the truth will get lost anyway, gg.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y

Article is slow to load, but interesting.

20 Questions that need answering before the "official story" can be validated.

http://www.st911.org/

Once there, click the top left link titled, "Why doubt 9/11?"

Read that site Chmee, didn't think it debunked anything, it just sort of aggressively claimed one thing.

I think it's Pentagon analysis was weak at best. Did seem that some of it was in keeping with a lot of the other things I have read that do seem to follow basic agreed principles.

Xanupox, found the actual 1960's Declassified documents by those Joint Chiefs of Staff here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf

For anyone doubting their leaders would even consider such a barbaric idea please look and have your idealistic and naive little teaparty dreams shattered.

Not that that document proves anything about 911 but it's pretty chilling reading thought all the same.

Jassun wrote:

Winnow wrote:I don't want you to "believe" anything, I just wouldn't blow off any possibilities.

Why the hell not? You did. Did you see the DVD I linked before you started your blathering in your reply about some "magic bullet" theory? If you discount the possible explanation in that DVD without even viewing it, then you are a hypocrite.

I only watch free movies! (the magic bullet comment was an obvious joke)

And no, I'm not sold on anything but I have an open mind on this topic and it will remain that way. I'm saying don't discount alternate theories. Not signing off on the official explanation doesn't mean I automatically am 100% convinced of another theory. There's tons of grey area here.

Winnow wrote: So do you have a problem with the man hours or are you saying that it's impossible that placed explosives were used? There's a difference.

I could care less how many man hours you think it would take. From the pictures can you say for sure that there is no way explosive charges were used?

I'm looking at it from a perspective of what would I need to accomplish this task.
1. You would have to remove tons of people to cut out and knotch the main weight bearing sections of the structure. This is not a fast or quiet job. You would have to tear down walls and clear entire floors for a few days at a time to accomplish this.
2. Again, if weakening the weight bearing supports was not done the level of explosive material needed would have taken out a lot more buildings than it did. Basically all those people running in the videos away from the dust clowds would have just died tired.
3. Igniting the charges. I would assume they would use LSC's would require det cord. Det cord is not a quite fuse type of deal. Its a relatively thick cord that detonates itself. Thats the only way to get the explosive charges to ignite simultaneously. Electrically initiated charges would be too slow. Wireless setups are nonpractical and unused as far as I know.

There are just so many hinderances to a project like this, I cant even imagine how it would be feasible.

I dont understand. You guys watch the video and make up your minds from there. After that you go and find all other info you can to support your foregone conclusion without researching any possibile reasons that would make your assumptions incorrect.

Movies =! Real life.

As for the Pentagon, I mean cmon. A missile?
It is 100% not possible for a missile to cause that kind of damage. Missiles are not designed to "poke holes" into things. They are not arrows.
Missiles blow shit up.
Penetrators? Yes we have those but those are bombs and an angle of attack like at the Pentagon would also not be physically possible. Nevermind the fact that none of them are big enough (not even remotely close) to poke a whole that big assuming you didnt use the charge to detonate the inner ring once it finished penetrating.

What exactly happened that day? I have a good idea but thats neither here nor there. What did NOT happen? Explosives were not used in the WTC. A missile did NOT hit the Pentagon.

Secondary explosions in a building like that would not be uncommon. This is not like your house, it is made for thousands of people. There are boilers and compressors and capacitors and just thousands of things in there than can and will explode under heat or pressure.

I think a lot of the individual claims are fairly dubious, but many of them are in areas where I don't really have any knowledge and haven't seen enough informed commentary to be able to say much one way or the other.


But my biggest problem with this whole scenario is the raw number of people that would have to be involved. The probability that you could keep a secret this big involving that number of people hidden is so close to zero that I find it impossible to take seriously.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Secondary explosions in a building like that would not be uncommon. This is not like your house, it is made for thousands of people. There are boilers and compressors and capacitors and just thousands of things in there than can and will explode under heat or pressure.

Honestly I very seriously doubt there were actual secondary explosions. When large heavy things break they make big noises.
An explosion would be felt as much as heard. The percusion or brisance of this volume of explosives going off at once would likely shatter most of the windows in NYC.
I wander if any of the "models" that say this couldnt possibly happen without explosives took into account the amount of weight on each floor. Not the weight of construction materials but the immeasurable TONS of materials...copiers/desks/people/water/office supplies all add up when you assume every office was occupied, thats a shitload of weight.

Sendarie wrote: 1. You would have to remove tons of people to cut out and knotch the main weight bearing sections of the structure. This is not a fast or quiet job. You would have to tear down walls and clear entire floors for a few days at a time to accomplish this.

Maybe you wouldn't need to knotch the main weight bearing sections...afterall, if you believe the official explanation is true, both buildings pancaked perfectly (as did Building Seven) because a plane hit a random floor/section of the building...and a few fires took down huge support beams in perfect pancakism fashion in the case of Building Seven....pretty amazing stuff considering the incredible amount of man hours this normally takes.(especially in the case of Building 7)

And don't forget these buildings fell at freefall speeds...not pancake speed which would necessarily be slower.

Winnow I never said I believed the official story. I am not a subject matter expert on burning buildings or aircraft crashing into a building.

All I was saying was that the buildings were not blown up using demo charges.
Curious, why is noone commenting on the missile/Pentagon part?

Those videos explain a lot. Now I understand why those strange men in black were roaming the halls with giant packs of "clay" when I was working there late at night. They said they were just patching rust holes in support beams, but now I know the truth! Damn if only I, or one of the countless other people working there, had reported this to authorites.

Sendarie wrote: Curious, why is noone commenting on the missile/Pentagon part?

Not commenting because I hadn't heard of a missile theory. I have heard of a GlobalHawk possibly hitting the Pentagon instead of a passenger jet which would be consistent with the few scraps of wreckage found.

The 2 hour video I posted here awhile ago went into detail analyzing the explosion etc. (since the powers that be only released 5 frames with no actual plane in view, that's all that could be analyzed)

I still have a link although its 337mb, 2 hour movie.

Analysis of the 911 Attack ~337mb

This video goes into great detail regarding Building Seven and it's level 22 command center along with the building's collapse...the first hour deals with the pentagon...2nd with WTCs.

Warning: The guy sounds whacky-geek and makes mega-lame use of cheesy CGI for text in the video and comes to his own conclusions which are pure speculation...so if you watch it, you'll have to be able to ignore those comments (and his geeky voice) otherwise your head will explode. If you can avoid picking up on one thing and losing your fucking grip, then the video as a whole is extremely interesting with plenty of technical data. Take it as a whole. Consider the science and ignore the speculation.


Original thread the movie was posted on (along with more links Noel posted):

http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... hp?t=11693

Honestly I very seriously doubt there were actual secondary explosions.

Really wouldn't surprise me too much. A huge problem in firefighting is explosive gases generated by the initial fire building up in adjoining space(s) and later detonating. Seen that more than once, scarey shit.

Jet Fuel (kerosene) can easily burn hot enough to melt\deform\vaporize steel. So can raw crude, bunker oil, cooking oil and just about every other fuel. I've seen all of them do it, either in training or real life accidents. There was a huge steel oil storage tank in Charleston that burned to the ground when we lived there, they couldn't put it out. That monsterous tank melted just like a beer can would.

You can melt the blades out of a turbine with jet fuel if it's running wrong, that's way past the melting point of steel.

Aaeamdar wrote:Those videos explain a lot. Now I understand why those strange men in black were roaming the halls with giant packs of "clay" when I was working there late at night. They said they were just patching rust holes in support beams, but now I know the truth! Damn if only I, or one of the countless other people working there, had reported this to authorites.

If only John McLane were there to steal the detonators.

How does anyone know that buildings like this dont collapse in that way naturally? How do you know it would be slower? How many skyscrapers have you seen collapse on their own?



Alright, another adorable point that keeps popping up: hydrocarbon fires cant melt steel because steel melts at around 2500F.... "buuuuuuuuuut".... First of all, the very same fucking video posted in this thread states that temperatures were recorded at 1300F (while simultaneously claiming that a hydrocarbon fire could never generate temperatures that high, btw). Why, I do believe that is a little toasty.

Second, like Zaelath said, you can post the melting point of steel. I am proud that you were able to copy/paste that from your conspiracy site of choice. Does that mean that steel is 100% sound until it melts? Only if you fail to think an inch past what your "open-mind" is reading! What is the point in having federal requirements to coat the structural supports of all buildings with fireproofing then, if nothing short of a gargantuan blowtorch will cause them to falter?

cadalano wrote: How many skyscrapers have you seen collapse on their own?

Exactly the point. None. And that includes many cases with huge multilevel fires that burned much longer than these.

Hell, the Oklahoma City bombing blew out a monstrous chunk of the building and it stood.

Chmee wrote:But my biggest problem with this whole scenario is the raw number of people that would have to be involved. The probability that you could keep a secret this big involving that number of people hidden is so close to zero that I find it impossible to take seriously.

I totally agree with this. I haven't watched the videos yet (I do plan to), but it's not like we're talking about operational security in the 1940s. This is 2006.

If I were to assume that this was truly a farce, I'd also have to assume that some outside agency (not the US government) was able to do this because I refuse to believe that our government could pull it off without a minimum of 100-200 people having knowledge of the event and making it happen. If you assume that everything is a possibility, sure, the towers were booby trapped etc., but if you have any knowledge of what it would take (in terms of resources) to pull off something like this, while maintaining OPSEC, it starts to become extremely difficult to believe.

noel wrote:
If I were to assume that this was truly a farce, I'd also have to assume that some outside agency (not the US government) was able to do this because I refuse to believe that our government could pull it off without a minimum of 100-200 people having knowledge of the event and making it happen. If you assume that everything is a possibility, sure, the towers were booby trapped etc., but if you have any knowledge of what it would take (in terms of resources) to pull off something like this, while maintaining OPSEC, it starts to become extremely difficult to believe.

The second hour of my linked video above will be of the most interest to you then Noel. It deals with Building Seven and possible scenarios involving Building Seven as a command center. Of course, that part is pure speculation but the narrator does go into dicussing modifications made to the 22nd floor of #7 including refitting that level with glass that could withstand high impacts and wind, etc. It was Rudi's disaster command center. Anyways, there's some good info to be had no matter what actually happened.

Just remember, this guy also has some pretty wild theories about what happened to the passengers of Flight 93, etc so just stick to the science and facts that he provides and ignore the rest.

Note: the video uses the DiVX codec

Why would anyone bother to use controlled demo? That is to say, given that you are going to drop both the towers to maximize terror or outrage to provide a causus belli; wouldn't you rather drop the towers all over the fucking place? It is just as and more cause effective.

What is the cause gain of dropping 2 towers and building 7? Building 7 isn't iconic so why bother? If your point is to infuriate, outrage or terrorize why do you give a shit about building 7? Not one news reporter that day said the phrase "The twin towers AND building 7," why? Because the world at large doesn't know wtf building 7 is...Or actually they may have said it...but no one not intimate witth new york noticed...

Or if you want to take out building 7 for some ubersecret purpose why not , if you are using cd techniques, drop one or both of the towers right the fuck on top of it? Kicker charges and sequencing cuts to generate directional torque are freakin easy relative to cutting.

Controlled demolition is used to minimize destruction. It is all about gravity not massive explosions, basically they cut steel and let gravity do the dropping. If you want to terrorize for one reason or the other you want to maximize destruction, nicht wahr?

And yes big heavy things fall straight the fuck down through their own center of gravity...that is how gravity works...down.

And by the way insurance on a leased building is mandatory......Why specify terrorism on the World Trade Center...Because it is a logical terror target?

I hate Bush prolly as much as anyone on this board...but I just don't buy it.

Take your "logic" and "science" somewhere else, mister! We're on a witch hunt!

masteen wrote:Take your "logic" and "science" somewhere else, mister! We're on a witch hunt!

Oops! My bad! I meant to post:

BURN THEM!!!! BURN ALL THE CORPORATE ILLUMINATI SCUM!!!!

Edit: Caps added for emphasis!

If they could fake the moon landings do you think this would be much harder? Nay!

I think it was Sendarie who asked earlier and didn't see anybody answering.. what happened to the flight in PA? I personally believe a decission was made to shoot it down. Do I have proof of it? Nope, but that is my personal belief.

Not even getting into the discussion about WTC since I don't know enough about it (or about physics really), but I do find some weird things about the Pentagon hit. I come from a family with pilots and a huge interest in flying and I can not get that crash to be correct with what they said. The impact, the debris and the tracks simply don't match. Do I have suggestions or ideas? Not really, but I do find it very strange.

I think the idea that they shot the plane down is pure insanity and nothing else. Do I think that would have been a better option then no reaction ? Yes I do, but I don't think that is what happened.

I wouldn't put anything past the government personally.

What made me suspicious was how the government had a 325+ page Patriot Act ready to be voted on so soon after the 9/11 attacks. I find that extremely suspicious.

There were several conspiracies involved in the OK city bombing as well. One of my friends was convinced it was also a government cover-up or planned job. Just do a search on that one and you will find all sorts of articles.

Deward wrote:What made me suspicious was how the government had a 325+ page Patriot Act ready to be voted on so soon after the 9/11 attacks. I find that extremely suspicious.

1. 325 pages is nothing really for congress, they produce prodigous amounts of paper.

2. A fair amount of the Patriot act was stuff that had been proposed before, mostly in relation to fighting the drug war (going back into at least the Clinton administration, both parties deserve their fair share of derision for the act). 9/11 just made it politically possible to get the stuff passed.

The second video is worth watching just to see the chilling image of the woman in the WTC looking out from 80th (or so) floor through the huge gouge in the building the plane made.

Reminded me of the enormity of the tragedy.

I don't understand the governments shitty handling of lots of the aspects of the events of that day, but I think the tragedy shouldn't be lost because of hysterical conspiracies and equally stupid defense of warmongers and liars.

If you want a real conspiracy, check out that whole laughable Oswald killed JFK joke.