Experts claim 911 an "inside job" - Page 2

to agree with these conspiracy guys on a basic level, there are alot of things we dont know about what happened. alot of avenues of investigation have been blocked by the government, like the videos from other cameras that were quickly confiscated from the area around the pentagon on 9/11.

that said, they give the government way too much credit. to say that the government has the ability to control a cover-up of this magnitude, when its clear that they didnt even bother to plan for a post-war iraq scenario, is just a huge leap of faith i cant make.

while its almost impossible to belive the government orchestrated 9/11, the idea that the bush administration knew about 9/11 before it happened, but let it happen anyway makes a whole lot of sense. its like FDR letting the japanese bomb pearl harbor. they knew the attack was coming, but instead of stopping it, they let it come, thus justifying any aggression in the middle east, if not through actual connection to the act, then by the use of fear that an even like this would (and did) instill in the american people.

The "they knew it was going to happen but let it" is pushing the boundaries of believability too.

It's very simple folks, the government was not ready and totally not prepared to defend the country against this type of attack. Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by sheer stupidity.

I have no problem believing that they "deliberately" ignored the terrorists and let them do their thing. I do have a problem with the explosives theory.

Yeah, that sounds about right to me. One certainly gets that impression watching United 93.

The only thing anyone can truly be certain of is that we really don't understand that much about anything.

See, if it weren't for building #7...I'd be inclined to agree. I just can't overlook that simple fact.

It's absolutely clear that certain individuals did have warning that something was going to happen on that day. I mean government officials were specifically told not to travel to New York that day, how much more evidence do you really need?

Besides all the strange coincidences and what have you, the red herring for me is the fact that 9/11 was extremely conveinent for the Neo-Cons, who have huge interest in oil and knew that peak oil was coming up around the millennium(the point at which 50% of the world's known oil resources are used up). They stated in their report (Plan for the New American Century) that in order to push their agenda, it would take alot of time short of an event similar to Pearl Harbor.

That agenda benefited greatly from 9/11. It was exactly the device they needed to push forth their plans for American Dominance in the global world.

When it all boils down to it though...all I can say is that I believe in justice, and I believe in equality. And regardless of who was responsible for 9/11 the worse attrocities to come out of this whole mess have been commited by the United States of America.

Regarding WTC7, the real issue to me is what the owner said on radio during the day. He said that the decision had been made to 'pull' the building, which is a slang term for demolition. Presumably that decision was made due to the damage the building had already sustained, damage that then could have made the final 'pulling' easier to do - by maybe taking out the remaining columns that were mentioned.

It didn't fly clear from one side of the building through to the other Devin.

The steel in that building was up to standards, which is that it must be capable of holding 15 times it's usual capacity, in case something like that were to happen. The buildings were designed the withstand collisions with commericial airliners (a known possible danger with skyscrapers), and the material that the airplanes are built with is nowhere near as strong as the steel and concrete the building was made with.

And if that's not enough, MIT professors agree upon this point. The same MIT professors that were part of the group of experts that developed the official theory, that the fires melted the trusses and weakened the structural integrity of the building resulting in the perfectly symetrical collapses (which would not have happened in such a way had the buildings suffered significant damage where the planes collided).

That the buildings withstood the impact of the airplanes is proved by the fact that the buildings stood as they were until the collapse. There wasn't much of a warning. No one expected it.

Yeah, there's that too. The owner, Joel Silverstein, answered that charge saying "pull it" meant to evacuate firefighters, but it's a known fact that there were no firefighters in the building.

Debris was indeed blown through the entire building. I know this for a fact. One of the jet engines landed on the corner where my office is, three blocks north of the Towers. You can cite some theory to disprove that all you want, but it's true.

The Towers were built thirty years before the attack. They were rated (never tested or anything, mind you. No impact tests, no fire tests. Nothing) for impacts from smaller planes.

You can argue this all day, but you're like someone who denies the Earth is turning because you can't feel it.

Already been done ...

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

The consensus in the structural engineering community backs the "official" theory, the conspiracy theory is backed mostly by non engineers and zero research (and a total lack of common sense I might add)

But they really, really want to believe it. That has to count for something, right? Right?

That's what they want you to think, El.

You're being sarcastic right?

I hope so, but it's hard to know what to believe anymore.

You're an ass, but I don't fault you, you don't realize your own ignorance.

You want to know what a fucking lack of common sense is? It's believing that the fires in those buildings were somehow able to weaken the steel trusses (indicating a tempurature around 1517 °F) but they weren't hot enough to keep people from walking around on those floors that were on fire all the way up until the buildings collapsed. That is a fucking lack of common sense.

The experts claim that the jet fuel was only the catalyst (as it does burn at 800 - 1500 °F but burned very very quickly) for those fires and the burning debris caused the temperatures to rise to the point necessary to weaken the steel trusses.

If you believe the official report or if you think that fucking Popular Mechanics article that Murrow keeps pointing toward hold any weight what-so-ever, than THIS is what you believe.

The problem? It defies physics.

Combustible fire burning from flammable materials cannot burn hotter than the maximum temperature rate at which jet fuel burns at. That's like saying holding a candle next to a blowtorch should increase the maximum blowtorch temperature.

I can't believe some of you are accepting this crap! So it was "the stuff" burning afterwards that was responsible for the heat transfer? Once the fire spreads away from the source, the hottest temperature would be at the point of origin (jet fuel) having temperatures significantly decrease once it begins to travel, they're defying physics by claiming the opposite. Plus we all know fire will always burn towards were there is oxygen, following this important bit of physics should have seen large inferno fires pouring out of the airplane impact cavities. Photographic evidence saw no such thing because there was no "stuff" burning consistently transferring 1832°F fires, we can clearly see office chairs, people and even paper unharmed by this magical fire. Also, NIST claims the steel was at 10 percent or less strength when it approaches 1800°F temperatures, yet they forget to calculate their own "x" factor of the spray-on fireproofing insulation.

Obviously tons of research has been put into undercovering the truth of what happened on 9/11, and that isn't just from a bunch of uneducated retards sitting in their parents basement that just woke up one day and said "Hey maybe the government did it."

This really just goes to show how biased and uninformed your opinion is on this matter. Of course you don't understand the opposition because you don't even understand your own fucking point of view. All the fuck you know is what some "expert" said and because he said it and because he has this and such credentials you believed it.

So, yeah I do believe that the true story of what happened on 9/11 is quite different than the story we've been force fed for the last 5 years. I don't think there's any question of that at all.

But you know what... this all really doesn't make a fucking difference. Either way our leadership carries much of the responsiblity and blame. Either way our leadership failed to protect us on that day and instead of replacing those leaders with more competent individuals whose interests were those of the people, the American public choose to back this President and doing so they've enabled the Neo-Con agenda.

Alternative conspiracy theory:

The building's original contractors used inferior building materials and actually didn't use any flame retardant substances at all. Cash was siphoned off to buy condo's with country club memberships in Florida, along with paying off building inspectors and workers to keep quite. No one comes forward as they would be legally accountable for the deaths of thousands of people.


Covers your problem, and has the added bonus of being far more plausable than anything you and the tin foil hat armada has presented so far.

Can you at least try not to expound on anymore of these conspiracist masturbation fantasies on this of all days? You know, out of respect.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...F0000&colID=13

I guess that Cthulu knows more than Scientific American or an engineering professor, and also I heard that one time Dick Cheney had SciAm subscription, which means they're in on the whole thing.

Cthulu, please provide evidence of people walking around on the floors with the hottest fires. Also please finally, once and for all, take into account that fully fueled passenger jets slammed into these buildings at high speeds, which creates a different set of circumstances than an ordinary fire. Or keep being dumb - it's up to you, really.

Fixed.

That was Operation Northwoods. Very fucked up and in light of 9/11, very plausible.

Who knows, maybe they did pull off a Northwoods project on us all, but these days I agree with Citizen Burke:

The truly ignorant are those who are deluded into thinking they're equipped to discern things outside of their understanding.

I'm not a structurual nor a Civil engineer, so I have to defer to the people who know this area. When you say "experts", who are these "experts", and what are their credentials? Why hasn't there been a major group of structural engineers come out and dispute the official findings? Why is it that the engineering school of the professor from Utah in the original article cited here, criticized and didn't even closely endorse his arguments as pausible?

Is there a big conspiracy in the engineering halls of America? Are they all "in it"?

Please do show us pictures of people casually walking around that inferno that was in those buildings. Please acknowledge that the structure was damaged, so comparisons to other fires are not adequate. Please show findings from individuals with real credentials, and respected bodies of relevant engineering disciplines that back up your conspiracy theory.

Just saying "professors" say "this or that" doesn't matter. Nobody cares what a Sociology professor or a "retired philosopher of science" want to say about the issue. And if a "physics" professor makes this accusations, let's see his peer reviewed study that shows us his theory backed up by facts, not undercover CIA agents blowing up buildings to cover their secret hideouts.

And Cthulu is also naively overlooking an obvious motivation for a lot of University Sociology/Political Science/Fill in the blank professors to advance any 9/11 theories that indict the current republican administration. Universities are staffed by over 90% far left Democrats. It's the last bastion of the "liberal elite", and also a place where the functioning of the outside world is quite often seen from a looking glass ( i.e. somewhat inaccurate) perspective.

Saying it's possible that there is a larger chance for certain professors to readily accept current administration conspiracy theories is akin to saying it might rain if the skies are looking cloudy. I'd be interested to see where the conspiracy supporters were if this happened under Clinton's watch.

And thinking about my own question, it's obvious. The Neo-Cons would still have to be behind it, regardless of the administration in power. Plotting from a secret underground lair in Texas....

"Universities are staffed by over 90% far left Democrats."

Ooh, look, a new dumb conspiracy theory in this thread.

I admitedly overemphasised. Stats still rack it at 65%-35%, or in the 2-1 range.
And my alma matter, Wayne State University, racked in at about 90-10.

Edit: 2-1, not 3-1 because I can't type.

Source?

I love how Cthulu says above that jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees but can't understand how that would affect steel that weakens at "around 1517 degrees." First of all, 1500 is "around" 1517 last time I checked. Second, say it takes an automobile impact of 100mph to kill me instantly. An impact of 85 is still going to fuck me up pretty good and probably kill my anyway. So what if the steel didn't melt? It just had to get hot enough to bend.

And about Tower 7 -- what was the point of bringing it down deliberately hours after the towers fell? What, that wasn't enough, bringing down an empty building evacuated hours previously was what put things over the top? And don't bring that "all the evidence was in there" crap either, even if that were the case, you'd think a group clever enough to pull of this massive conspiracy would be smart enough not to leave evidence right on the site.

Some Primetime or 20/20 special about 5 odd years ago. Some guy had a conspiracy theory republican professors were being forced out of most university systems. He was claiming 98%, and they countered with the more reasonable albeit still left favored 65%. It may have changed by today, but that doesn't sound too far fetched.

It was john Stossel piece, wasn't it?

Not sure. Although I'd assume Stossel would have confirmed that as truth, not tried to counter it.

A Google search turned up this 2005 Washington Post article.

A caveat:

And regardless of statistics, I had several professors who would undoubtly respond to a claim that Bush was actually the illegimate son of Adolph Hitler and Tokoyo Rose by yelling "I knew It!". I really should have a received an "A" for "Creative Writing" instead of "Philosphy and Critical Thinking" because of some of the pure fabricated positions I supported in papers I wrote to keep my scholorship intact. That was way back in '85 though, so one of you currently enrolled kids let me know if it's changed.

Uncle Cthulhu, so what happened at the Pentagon, are you part of the "cruise missile" contingent?

Building materials that were weaker than human flesh?

Care to show us the pictures of people walking amongst the flames?

On a floor where the plane crashed?

He is probably talking about this picture:



Which is believed to be of Edna Cintron. Theorists claim that she should be dead from the heat of the fire if there was a fire (and I really don't understand the line of reasoning that there wasn't a fire, but whatever).

The problem is that they use this picture out of context.

Let's pan out a bit:



Now keep in mind how big Edna is in teh first picture. Try to keep her scale in mind as we really pull out:



Doh.

Um no. In order to weaken the steel those temperatures would have had to be sustained for an extended period of time, they were not. Most of the jet fuel was burned outside of the buildings during the collisions. The fires that did remain, given visual evidence (smoke billowing, indicating lack of oxygen, and PEOPLE walking around) as well as eyewitness reports from New York Firefighters (several who have stated that the fires were nearly put out by the time of the collapses, or were at least nothing more than a typical office fire burning around 500 degrees), indicates that the fires were never strong enough to significantly weaken the steel.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Don't answer that - just look at the size of the flames in that third picture in comparison to the scale of Edna Cintron. You're an idiot.

But is it really jet fuel that is burning (substantially after the impact), or is it the stuff in the building that is burning?

And just who were these firemen who managed to get up to where the fires were and make it back down alive to confirm that the fires were pretty much out when the buildings collapsed? I guess that smoke we saw billowing out of them when they both went down was just some smoldering cardboard or something.

Besides, I'm sure completely intact steel with a 1500 degree blowtorch on it doesn't melt. Steel that's been hit by a jet plane and then exposed to a jet fuel-fueled explosion may be behave a tad differently.

The firefighters who made it up to the burning floors died. The steel in the towers never melted, it just buckled.

I'll be honest, I'm not satisfied with what my eyes saw, its never happened to a building in the past and it hasnt happened since, its still amazing to me how the buildings just crumbled so easily. I mean sure, an airplane impact can rock the building some, burning jet fuel can melt or weaken steel, but the buildings are tall and most of the floors below the impact area should have been unaffected by the heat and strong enough to withststand the pressure from above, and yet they didnt, and not only didnt they remain standing but the buildings fell in seconds, not in increments. Its the sudden implosion that is most jarring, if the buildings had fell apart bit by bit it would have made more sense to my brain

The whole day was just so surreal. Maybe the surreality of it all fuels theorists and it always will, so much craziness five years ago.

I'm not good at physics, I'll just get that out there, hah.

Quick, list the buildings of that type that have ever been slammed into at high speeds by fully fueled jetliners. Which of those fell?

Hint: The list of buildings that have ever been slammed into at high speeds by fully fueled jetliners are World Trade Center Tower 1 and World Trade Center Tower 2.

Well thats the point exactly, there's no other example to reference in this particular case, which only fuels the theorists more. If you'd have asked people before 9/11 if they thought the towers would fall to the ground in seconds due to being hit by an airliner, I bet most of them would think not.

Besides, yes, those floors were probably designed to support their own weight in people and furniture resting atop them. They most certainly weren't designed to support the weight of the floor above them fall down on them.

Anyone here seen the NOVA episode Why The Towers Fell? Here's a transcript (obviously not as gripping as seeing the actual episode), but it explains in typical layman-friendly science just how the buildings' upper floors collapsed and pancaked on the floors beneath, resulting in the chain-reaction collapse floor by floor. If you can find the episode online anywhere, I'd suggest checking it out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

Then again, I guess NOVA and PBS could just be part of this vast conspiracy too...

What is the percentage of floors above and below the impact point, anyone know? I would just assume 70% (for example) of the lower half of the building would support the 30% resting atop of it, and for it to cave in like a pretzel and descend to the ground at such a fast rate is just amazing.

I'm not on either side of the debate raging in this thread, just playing devils advocate and giving my random thoughts. Has any organistion done computer simulations of the event to placate the theorists?

EDIT: I'll check that out Jacob, thanks for the link.

No offense, but why are you chiming in on this thread when it's obvious that you have no information about 9/11 at all? Including, it would seem, never having seen any pictures of the WTC getting hit?