CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Experts claim 911 an "inside job"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Experts claim 911 an "inside job"

post #1 of 225
9/6/06 at 10:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
]Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'
by JAYA NARAIN

Last updated at 15:47pm on 6th September 2006

The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.

Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.

The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.

But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.

Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.

He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.

Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone.

"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."

In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.

They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.

The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.

Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.

He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.

The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.

Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."

The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.

Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.

Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.

He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.

"After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."

But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems.

He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."

As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.
...and this...

Quote:
Who really blew up the twin towers?
As the fifth anniversary of 9/11 nears, Christina Asquith finds academics querying the official version of events
Tuesday September 5, 2006
The Guardian
Shards of glass and dust from the World Trade Centre towers sit on Professor Steven Jones's desk at Brigham Young University in Utah. Evidence, he says, of the biggest cover-up in history - one too evil for most to believe, but one he has staked his academic career on exposing.
The attacks of September 11, Jones asserts, were an "inside job", puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending and expand Israel.

"We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone," says Jones. "We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."

While this sinister spin strikes most American academics as absurd, Jones, a physics professor, is not alone. He is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth, a recently formed group of around 75 US professors determined to prove 9/11 was a hoax. In essays and journals, they are using their association with prominent universities to give a scholarly stamp to conspiracy theories long believed in parts of Europe and the Arab world, and gaining ground among Americans due to frustration with the Iraq war and opposition to President Bush's heavily hyped "war on terror".

Their iconoclastic positions have drawn wrath from rightwing radio shows and caused upheaval on campuses, triggering letters to newspapers, phone calls from parents and TV cameras in lecture halls.

In the Midwest, 61 legislators signed a petition calling for the dismissal of a University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, after he joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Citing academic freedom, the university provost defended Barrett, albeit reluctantly.

A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll taken during the summer indicates that Americans are increasingly suspicious of the government's explanation of the events of 9/11: 36% said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, or took no action to stop them, "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East".
Reply
post #2 of 225
9/6/06 at 10:56pm
Thread Starter 
Cont...

Quote:
For most of the world, the story of 9/11 begins at 8.45am on September 11 2001, when American Airlines flight 11 smashed into the North tower of the World Trade Centre. But, tumble down the rabbit hole with Jones, and the plotline begins a year earlier, in September 2000. A neoconservative group called Project for a New American Century, which included the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the vice-president, Dick Cheney, brought out a report arguing for a global expansion of American military and economic supremacy, and for the US to transform itself into a "one-world superpower". The report warned that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

Excuse for aggression

The group, in concert with about 20 others, orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 as an excuse for pre-emptive global aggression against Afghanistan, then Iraq and soon Iran, the academics say. And they insist that they have amassed a wealth of scientific data to prove it.

It is impossible, says Jones, for the towers to have collapsed from the collision of two aeroplanes, as jet fuel doesn't burn at temperatures hot enough to melt steel beams. The horizontal puffs of smoke - squibs - emitted during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled implosions on lower floors. The scholars have collected eyewitness accounts of flashes and loud explosions immediately before the fall.

The twin towers must, they say, have been brought down by explosives - hence the container of dust on Jones's desk, sent to him unsolicited by a woman living in lower Manhattan. He is using X-ray fluorescents to test it for explosive materials.

What's more, the nearby World Trade Centre 7 also collapsed later that afternoon. The building had not been hit by a plane, only damaged by fire. WTC 7 housed a clandestine CIA station, which the scholars believe was the command centre for the planning of 9/11.

"The planes were just a distraction," says Professor James Fetzer, 65, a recently retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota. "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."

But Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse.

Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.

The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."

Since the attacks, the US government has issued three reports into the events of the day, all of which involved hundreds of professors, scientists and government officials. The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group, issued a 500-page, moment-by-moment investigation into the hijackers' movements, concluding that they were connected to Osama bin Laden. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency, filed 10,000 pages of reports examining the towers' collapse. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency weighed in, examining the response to the attacks.

"To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards," says Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoke College. "After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."

But Barrett says the experts have been fooled by an "act of psychological conversion" not unlike the tactics CIA interrogators use on their victims. "People will disregard evidence if it causes their faith to be shattered," he says. "I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."

Misleading the public

History has revealed that governments have a tradition of misleading the public into going to war, says Barrett, and the next generation of Americans will realise the truth. "Europe and Canada are way ahead of us on this."

The 9/11 scholars go to great lengths to portray themselves as rational thinkers, who have been slowly won over by a careful, academic analysis of the facts of the day.

However, a study of the full extent of their claims is a journey into the increasingly absurd: Flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania but landed safely in Cleveland; desperate phone calls received by relatives on the ground from passengers were actually computer-generated voices from a laboratory in California. The Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines Flight 77, but by a smaller, remote-controlled A-3 Sky Warrior, which shot a missile into the building before crashing into it.

Many of the 9/11 scholars have a history of defending conspiracy theories, including that the CIA plotted both the Lockerbie bombing and the plane crash of John F Kennedy Jr and his wife, and that "global secret societies" control the world.

Professor Robert Goldberg, of the University of Utah, wrote a book on conspiracy theories, Enemies Within: the Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. He recounts a history of religious and political leaders using conspiracy theories for personal and political gain. The common enemy is usually Jews, big government or corporations. The public laps it up, either because these theories are more exciting than the truth, or out of emotional need.

"What the conspiracy theorists do is present their case with facts and figures: they have dates, meeting places and always name names," he says. "The case is always presented in a prosecutorial way, or the way an adventure writer presents a novel. It's a breathless account. They are willing to say hearsay is a fact, and rumour is true, and accidents are never what they seem.

"One of the stories is that a missile hit the Pentagon, and all the data is there. But what is missing is: what actually happened to the plane and the people on it? Conspiracy theorists avoid discussion of those facts that don't fit."

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the public's willingness to believe conspiracy theories parallels their dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. In recent years, the American public has felt misled over false claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11.

Many fear infringements on their civil liberties now the National Security Agency has gained access to phone billing records from telecommunications companies, the Bush administration has engaged in wiretapping without court warrants and there are thousands of cases of indefinite detentions of American and foreign citizens without trial. Those who criticise the Bush administration's "war on terror" are accused of being unpatriotic.

By taking their criticisms to such extremes, though, the scholars risk caricaturing the opposition. None the less, they are pushing on, and imploring Congress to reopen the investigation.

"We're academics and we're rational, and we really believe Congress or someone should investigate this," says David Gabbard, an East Carolina education professor and 9/11 scholar. "But there are a lot of crazies out there who purport that UFOs were involved. We don't want to be lumped in with those folks."
So what do people think? Its one thing for just anybody with a grasp of how to make a flash slideshow on the net throwing up these sort of theories - but here we have a collection of academics and scientists claiming the biggest cover-up in history.

Or is this part of a wider left-wing academic conspiracy to destabalise the Bush Administration?

Im amazed this hasn't already been posted here - and I did look, just couldn't find anything.
Reply
post #3 of 225
9/6/06 at 11:00pm
Wow, my friend, you haven't looked hard enough - just do a search for Uncle Cthulu and you'll find pages and pages and pages of posts on this very discussion.
Reply
post #4 of 225
9/6/06 at 11:15pm
This is even less likely than the government faking the moon landing. In other words, no.
Reply
post #5 of 225
9/6/06 at 11:58pm
The thing I keep coming back to is that if 9/11 was a way for the government to rationalize invading Iraq, wouldn't they have done a better job of making it look like Iraq was responsible for it? I mean, there's no evidence whatsoever of an Iraq connection, and there never was. The administration never even claimed there was. That's what makes this whole theory fall down.
Reply
post #6 of 225
9/7/06 at 12:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JGButler
Wow, my friend, you haven't looked hard enough - just do a search for Uncle Cthulu and you'll find pages and pages and pages of posts on this very discussion.
Yeah, you really could have just named this thread The Call of Uncle Cthulu.
Reply
post #7 of 225
9/7/06 at 12:22am
Perhaps the President and Vice President's slowness in responding to calls for guidance during the attacks could be seen as a passive act of complicity, but I don't see any reason to believe the government was in any way involved in carrying out the attacks. It's just highly improbable in too many ways.
Reply
post #8 of 225
9/7/06 at 12:45am
Quote:
Or is this part of a wider left-wing academic conspiracy to destabalise the Bush Administration?
You're kidding, right?

Kooky stories from people who may or may not be qualified and informed enough to comment who will end up being discredited by their peers don't strike me as being the hallmarks of a well planned conspiracy. We're talking about people whose evidence include vials of who-knows-what sent to them by who-knows-who, and this doesn't strike me as being terribly academic.
Reply
post #9 of 225
9/7/06 at 12:51am
I'm really torn on this. On one hand, I wouldn't put it past our government for even a second. On the other, the number of people who would either have to: a) be complicit and yet trusted to keep their mouths shut, or b) participate unwittingly and unknowingly would simply be staggering. It's hard to swallow, and I have no issue with conspiracy theories whatsoever.
Reply
post #10 of 225
9/7/06 at 1:59am
I heard one day on a radio show some guy trying to explain how wiring and bombs were smuggled into the WTC, and wired it just right to fall the way it did, and the radio host said, "Isn't it easier to believe that a group of terrorists that hate our country and administration hijacked some planes and flew them into the WTC?" And to that I say yes. The WTC has been a bomb target before, and terrorists hijacking planes was nothing new. What is so hard to believe about that?
Side note though: As soon as I heard about the planes hitting the buildings, the first thing I thought was conspiracy. But that's probably because at the time I was reading about Operation Blackwoods (I think that was the name), where the military came up with a clandestine plan to attack US military ships and other US targets under the guise of the Cubans, creating a swing of the American people to support an attack on Cuba. But Kennedy extremely shot it down as soon as it was proposed to him. So yeah, my first thought was conspiracy in the same vein. But the more I thought about it, the less I believed it.
Reply
post #11 of 225
9/7/06 at 2:23am
All I can add to this (and I've posted ad nauseum already) is to quote Socrates: the unexamined life is not worth living.
Reply
post #12 of 225
9/7/06 at 6:21am
Whether or not there's any truth to any of this, do any of you even begin to realize how much you all really don't know? All you know about this is what you've been told. Any point of view on this that any of you have, is for the most part, only one that has been presented to you. Do you realize that? Does it bother you?

You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in "authority" tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11.
Reply
post #13 of 225
9/7/06 at 6:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
Whether or not there's any truth to any of this, do any of you even begin to realize how much you all really don't know? All you know about this is what you've been told. Any point of view on this that any of you have, is for the most part, only one that has been presented to you. Do you realize that? Does it bother you?

You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in "authority" tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11.
You know how, in all those other threads, you always used to cry about people making assumptions about you?

Yeah, I think that lesson can be applied here.
Reply
post #14 of 225
9/7/06 at 7:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
I mean, there's no evidence whatsoever of an Iraq connection, and there never was. The administration never even claimed there was.
I'm not sure about that. The administration did an excellent job of conflating Iraq and Sept 11th in official speeches, and even today the stance is still very equivocal.
Reply
post #15 of 225
9/7/06 at 10:59am
While I think this Administration is capable of such an act MORALLY, the image of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi, etc sitting in a smoke filled room and actually having the mental capacity to mastermind this is hilarious. I don't think this crew could mastermind the destruction of a sand castle, let alone handle the far reaching implications of 9/11.
Reply
post #16 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:09am
I'm getting a little tired of the "airplane fuel can't cause a fire hot enough to melt steel" argument. It didn't have to completely melt it to molten slag, it just had to get it hot enough to soften to the point where it wouldn't support the weight of the floors anymore.
Reply
post #17 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:18am
I'm getting a little tired of the idea that three planes crashing on three very large, very iconic buildings wouldn't be enough justification for the "War on Terror" .

If the conspiracy theorists simply said that the attacks had CIA backing, I'd entertain the thought. But this is nonsense.
Reply
post #18 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:38am

Experts claim 911 an "inside job"...

...And crazy people believe them.


Heyzeus christ, I cannot believe people still argue about this as something plausable. Let's look at this with a really simple logic proof:

Fact A)
Iran-Contra was found out. Hell, the government was incapable of covering up the president getting a blow job from a fat intern. What in the holy fuck makes people believe they could pull something like this off?

Theorem B)
Let's negate A) by saying the "Project for a New American Century" imported Black Op ninja kung-fu geniuses from the Yakuza in Japan to pull this off. Then why fly planes into buildings? Far too many variables to control and oppurtunities for mishaps. Why not instead just have terrorists blow up the building and claim responsibility? The two-towers collapsing is the focal point for 9/11 (hell some people are unaware a plane hit the Pentagon), so why not wrap it in a bow a hell of a lot easier?

Theorem C)
Let's Negate B) by claiming that the Yakuza Black Ops had help from disgruntled airport security unions who wanted an up in pay and work force. Now we got planes going into the buildings.
Then Why not have terrorists claiming they did it for Iraq? Why the whole WMD fiasco and more important, the invasion of Afghanastan? It's not a major oil rich country, only a pipeline transporter. Syria would have made far more sense to have direct port access from Iraq to the mediterranian sea.

Unfortunatly, for C) to be negated, we would require Fact A):morons were planning the aftermath.


Believe 9/11 was used politically to start the Iraq war?
Fair enough.

Believe 9/11 was planned by government conspirorists to start the Iraq war?
You are a moron beyond all definitions of the word.
Reply
post #19 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Death Surge
Fact A)
Iran-Contra was found out. Hell, the government was incapable of covering up the president getting a blow job from a fat intern. What in the holy fuck makes people believe they could pull something like this off?
There are actually people who believe that the conspirators let stuff like this slip out to create a believable air of fallibility. Seriously.
Reply
post #20 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:45am
They also believe no one has set foot on the moon, the Illuminati are in control of a single world goverment, Aliens steal cows from cattle ranches, and Elvis is still alive.

Speaking of which...Hey Cthulu! How is Elvis these days?
Reply
post #21 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in "authority" tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11.
Yes, that's right. We're conditioned to believe what those in authority tell us. That explains our unanimous support for the Iraq war and our wholehearted endorsement of Bush environmental policy.

Picking up on the way we fall in line with authority figures the way you have was very astute. Good eye.
Reply
post #22 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:52am
Conspiracy theorists are just as blind in their belief of what other conspiracy theorists tell them as they claim we are in our belief of what the authorities tell us.
Reply
post #23 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in "authority" tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11.
No, we are just too conditioned to use our brains and common sense. Orchestrating 9/11 and topping that by placing explosives in the WTC foundations is the equivalent of going from New York to LA via Buenos Aires. Sure, you could do it, but why not just take the interstate?
Reply
post #24 of 225
9/7/06 at 11:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson
I'm getting a little tired of the "airplane fuel can't cause a fire hot enough to melt steel" argument. It didn't have to completely melt it to molten slag, it just had to get it hot enough to soften to the point where it wouldn't support the weight of the floors anymore.
They tend to ignore the difference between fire retardants being exposed to open flame as they would in your average fire and fire retardants exposed to a ball of burning jet fuel traveling at whatever speed the planes hit the buildings at. I envision it as something like the buildings and busses being knocked over in test footage of nuclear detonations, just on a smaller scale. Whoof, and the fireprotection is stripped away. It's now busy not burning as it falls out the window and down to the street, and the support structure's free to melt.
Reply
post #25 of 225
9/7/06 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
Whether or not there's any truth to any of this, do any of you even begin to realize how much you all really don't know? All you know about this is what you've been told. Any point of view on this that any of you have, is for the most part, only one that has been presented to you. Do you realize that? Does it bother you?

You all are just too conditioned to believe what those in "authority" tell you, that just the truth, regardless of what did or did not happen on 9/11.
This is stupid. Its like the "if a tree falls in the forest..." argument. Obviously I can't "see" gravity, but I'm pretty sure that objects behind me don't defy it when I turn my head.

I'm not saying we should close the book on all the unanswered questions of 9/11/2001. There are some very suspicious things that happened that day, and I'd certainly love to interrogate the shit out of Bushco for all the terrible things they've done in the past 5 years. But being so strident when the only thing you can add to the conversation is that there are "unknown unknowns", is pretty silly.
Reply
post #26 of 225
9/7/06 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus
This is stupid. Its like the "if a tree falls in the forest..." argument. Obviously I can't "see" gravity, but I'm pretty sure that objects behind me don't defy it when I turn my head.
Okay, so you're equating the theory of gravitation (something that is proven in our day to day lives) with the official theory of 9/11, which is full of inconsistancies, which fails to answer alot of questions which really need to be answered, and that almost requires bending and breaking the laws of physics in order to work?

I just want to be totally clear, because you seem to think that what I said was stupid.

Quote:
But being so strident when the only thing you can add to the conversation is that there are "unknown unknowns", is pretty silly.
As opposed to admitting there are alot of unanswered questions about 9/11 but sitting back and doing nothing to try and uncover the full and complete truth?

You're argument would hold a little more water if the majority of American's weren't spending their days flipping through the channels, sipping on their lattes and reading about what color Paris Hilton's shit was today instead of being more concerned about very serious matters that need to be tended to. And all of this questioning of the official theory should be the least of those concerns, what needs to be focused on (and stopped) is the Neo-Con agenda, which benifited greatly from 9/11.
Reply
post #27 of 225
9/7/06 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
And all of this questioning of the official theory should be the least of those concerns, what needs to be focused on (and stopped) is the Neo-Con agenda, which benifited greatly from 9/11.
Let it be known that today is a special event. Uncle Cthulhu finally agrees with virtually everyone else on this board.
Reply
post #28 of 225
9/7/06 at 6:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
Let it be known that today is a special event. Uncle Cthulhu finally agrees with virtually everyone else on this board.
If you'd really been paying attention you would've noticed that I've been saying the same thing for quite a while.

The only point I differ on, is that these so-called conpiracy theories hold more water than the official theories, despite lacking hard evidence from the scene of the crime.

Because even if you can give an adaquate explanation for how the towers collapsed without the involvement of the only one proven method of making such buildings collapse with such precision, you're still left with alot of problems, namely building #7, and the why the government has refused to release any of the video tapes from the surrounding buildings that captured the attack on the Pentagon.

I think it's very important now to look into these things and demand some answers, but it's even more important that we focus on the real horrors that are going on now in the world because of the Bush Administration, and that those things are put to an end and the responsible parties brought to justice.
Reply
post #29 of 225
9/7/06 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu

I just want to be totally clear, because you seem to think that what I said was stupid.

New sig!
Reply
post #30 of 225
9/7/06 at 7:24pm
Uncle Cthulhu, are you a writer for Jack Chick comics?
Reply
post #31 of 225
9/7/06 at 7:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
I just want to be totally clear, because you seem to think that what I said was stupid.
Just because my analogy isn't as apt as I would like doesn't make your conclusions of what I believe versus what I've been told to believe any less "stupid." But, whatever, I'm not gonna get into an argument about these details. And you're not gonna stop the hyperbole.
Reply
post #32 of 225
9/7/06 at 10:03pm
The reasons why WTC 7 fell always seemed kinda sketchy to me. That was not a poorly made structure, nor was it hit with anything.
Reply
post #33 of 225
9/8/06 at 12:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Body Snatcher
Speaking of which, how the fuck does a commercial airliner get anywhere near the heart of the military without someone noticing?
Agreed. This reminds me of something I read a while back, something to the effect of NORAD being told to stand down on 9/11. Can anyone confirm or refute this? I just can't remember the content of the article very clearly at this point. Also, does the Pentagon have any kind of missile defense system?
Reply
post #34 of 225
9/8/06 at 1:51am
If this were conducted like a criminal investigation, with someone like Patrick Fitzgerald running things, all these questions wouldn't continue to persist. It is, one might argue, the most heinous criminal act ever perpetrated on American soil. It merits a criminal investigation.
Reply
post #35 of 225
9/8/06 at 4:20am
Popular Mechanics' ten-page, in-depth study of the WTC collapses, including the addressing of several conspiracy theories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Of course, even with this logical scientific explanation, which can't be debunked or challenged without resorting to claims of the "well that's what they SAY, but I just don't believe that story" variety, there remains another, more interesting reasoning behind the WTC-7 collapse being genuine. Simply put, what else did the government have to gain by demolishing a supposedly unharmed building? What possible political motivation was there for them to destroy WTC-7, having already allegedly brought the twin towers down? There is none. The result of 9/11 would've been exactly the same as it always has been, with or without that extra building collapse. All WTC-7 does is muddy their theoretical plan.

Now, I don't disagree that the government has been less than forthcoming with examining what happened on 9/11. But a far more reasonable, rational explanation for their reticence is their desire to keep that day as a nice, simple political touchstone, as well as to cover up any percieved shortcoming on their part. 9/11 was and is an incredibly complex political and social event, something which the Bush administration can do without. Their version-9/11 was perpetrated by evil terrorists and nothing we could have done would've stopped it-is the one that allows their policies to continue as they have over the past five years.
Reply
post #36 of 225
9/8/06 at 5:13am
Cthulhu's position is roughly the same as the fundamentalist position on evolution: if a theory has holes or grey spots, it is wrong, and we can substitute a completely batshit insane theory to replace it.
Reply
post #37 of 225
9/9/06 at 3:31am

Terrorstorm.

Why Havent you watched it yet?



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...67957407328313
Reply
post #38 of 225
9/9/06 at 9:27pm
Note that their research was gathered from the panel of experts who back the official explanation.

No effort was made to actually investigate any other possibilities for how and why the towers collapsed. That's not an investigation. That's taking a preconceived notion (that al qaeda terrorists flew planes into the buildings resulting in the subsequent destruction), and trying to figure out how it works. That's not a fucking investigation, and it doesn't really use the scientific method, because it assumes that they already knew the cause (the planes).

I must stress how theatrical the whole thing was and how one could not just simply overlook the planes, because they had a very dramatic effect, resulting in an emotional rather than a rational reaction from people.

Give me a fucking actual investigation of what happened. If the official theory is true, than explain to me how fucking fires obviously suffering from lack of oxygen were able to melt steel (while it seemed to have little effect on PEOPLE in the fucking building) bring down two buildings that had suffered worse fires in the past. Because it makes no fucking sense.

At the very least create a computer simulation of the Twin Towers with all of the conditions from that day, a completely realistic creation of the physics and everything. And prove to me that those planes were capable of the destruction that took place. And fucking make the WTC plans available to the public so that someone is actually capable of doing that.

You keep citing this fucking Popular Mechanics article like it's the fucking bible on 9/11, and you don't even realize how much investigation did not take place. You don't even realize how many people have been censored, you don't realize how much has not been actually proven to us.

Just because so many fucking people believe in and shove down our throats that the official cause and explanation of 9/11 is doctrine does not make it fact.
Reply
post #39 of 225
9/9/06 at 9:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
Note that their research was gathered from the panel of experts who back the official explanation.
You mean all the people listed in the article that they used for reference are "in" on the conspiracy?

Who are these "leading" academics, what are their credentials? Is the biggest name Steven Jones? Are there any leading engineers in their ranks, specially structural engineers, because the ones in Jones own University shut down his theories from a structural engineering point of view. Are most engineers in the country "in" the conspiracy?

What's so scientific about speculating that WTC-7 housed a secret CIA operation and that's why it had to be blown up? What science leads to that conclusion?
Reply
post #40 of 225
9/9/06 at 9:59pm
Quote:
If the official theory is true, than explain to me how fucking fires obviously suffering from lack of oxygen were able to melt steel (while it seemed to have little effect on PEOPLE in the fucking building) bring down two buildings that had suffered worse fires in the past.
Please cite when these buildings had worse fires. I do not remember massive fires across many floors of these buildings.

Further, where is the evidence that these fires had little effect on people? You're going to point to a blurry picture of what looks like a person standing in what you think should be the fire zone, right?

Also, how are these fires suffering from lack of oxygen when the impact of the planes blew open multiple sides of the buildings?

Also, are you familiar with the history of building and fire codes in New York City? Are you familiar with which codes the towers were held to? Are you familiar with the fire-proofing on the steel support? Are you familiar with how it was applied? Are you familiar with what kind of tests the steel and structure underwent? I'll give you a hint on the last one: None!
Reply
post #41 of 225
9/9/06 at 10:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica
You mean all the people listed in the article that they used for reference are "in" on the conspiracy?
Uh no, I'm simply saying that there was no actual investigation. This panel of experts took a preconceived notion and told us how that scenario worked and it was quickly accepted as truth.
Reply
post #42 of 225
9/9/06 at 10:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
Please cite when these buildings had worse fires. I do not remember massive fires across many floors of these buildings.
On February 14th 1975, the north towers suffered a fire that spread across 6 floors, and burned for more than 3 hours.

This fire was described by firefighters as being "like a blow torch". It is evident that the 1975 fire was more intense than those on 9/11 by the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows, and by the known fact that the fires on 9/11 we're suffering from a lack of oxygen. This indicates that the 1975 fires had a temperature greater than the fires the building suffered on 9/11, as on that day the windows were not broken by the heat but only by the aircraft impact.

This was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was worse than the fires the building suffered on 9/11, and yet the building suffered no serious structural damage.

There's scans of NY Times articles about the event around the net, google it.
Reply
post #43 of 225
9/9/06 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
On February 14th 1975, the north towers suffered a fire that spread across 6 floors, and burned for more than 3 hours.

This fire was described by firefighters as being "like a blow torch". It is evident that the 1975 fire was more intense than those on 9/11 by the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows, and by the known fact that the fires on 9/11 we're suffering from a lack of oxygen. This indicates that the 1975 fires had a temperature greater than the fires the building suffered on 9/11, as on that day the windows were not broken by the heat but only by the aircraft impact.

This was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was worse than the fires the building suffered on 9/11, and yet the building suffered no serious structural damage.

There's scans of NY Times articles about the event around the net, google it.
Oh, did that fire blow the spray-on fireproofing off the steel structure of the building? Because that's what happened on 9/11. And did the structure itself receive a serious and disastrous impact, weakening its very integrity? Because that's what happened on 9/11.
Reply
post #44 of 225
9/9/06 at 10:29pm
Devin already said it, but that's what I was going to point out.

You can't dismiss the initial impact of a plane colliding on the building in the first place ...



http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Quote:
It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.
Reply
post #45 of 225
9/9/06 at 10:31pm
There is footage of the second plane blowing out the other side of the fucking building. How anyone can claim that the structural integrity of this building wasn't significantly damaged is beyond me.
Reply
post #46 of 225
9/9/06 at 10:37pm
I like how Cthulu answers one part of the original post. I wanted to fucking destroy him in regards to the Edna Cintron photo. Like, I was really looking forward to it.
Reply
post #47 of 225
9/9/06 at 11:29pm
If I was going to entertain the idea that Iraq was orchestrated by this administration, then, among many other things, I'd have to wonder "Why didn't they plant nuclear weapons in Iraq?"
Reply
post #48 of 225
9/9/06 at 11:35pm
It really doesn't matter how improbable the collapse of the towers is, because a government conspiracy to secretly execute the 9/11 attacks is even more improbable. It simply wouldn't make sense.
Reply
post #49 of 225
9/9/06 at 11:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
On February 14th 1975, the north towers suffered a fire that spread across 6 floors, and burned for more than 3 hours.

This fire was described by firefighters as being "like a blow torch". It is evident that the 1975 fire was more intense than those on 9/11 by the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows, and by the known fact that the fires on 9/11 we're suffering from a lack of oxygen. This indicates that the 1975 fires had a temperature greater than the fires the building suffered on 9/11, as on that day the windows were not broken by the heat but only by the aircraft impact.

This was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was worse than the fires the building suffered on 9/11, and yet the building suffered no serious structural damage.

There's scans of NY Times articles about the event around the net, google it.
I'm no physicist, but it could be that since the fire in 1975 started within the building it caused a pressure buildup which led to the windows breaking. Whereas on 9/11, since both sides of the towers had ginormous holes blown through them there was no pressure to build up.

On second thought, naaa. That'd just be crazy.
Reply
post #50 of 225
9/10/06 at 2:29am
What I can't figure out is why any of you bother to engage Uncle Cthulhu in this debate anymore. We all know that he's certifiably insane, and stricken with a complete inability to view things logically or reasonably. Is it worth it to continue arguing with him? You might as well go to that street corner and scream back at that guy who says that Jesus is coming.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Experts claim 911 an "inside job"