The ability and willingness (even enthusiasm) of people to see conspiracies everywhere, possibly especially in the US, never ceases to amaze me. Unbelievable.
The mass public's ability and willingness to NEVER QUESTION anything they're told by our government never ceases to amaze me. SHEEP
Precisely. Now, back to the opening title of this thread -- "The Real Cause of 911?" The real cause was murderous savages attacking and killing our people.
You do realize, the Government's official story - is by fact - a CONSPIRACY THEORY.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! Why don't you start trying to be rational Minstrel. Your irrational posts never cease to amaze me!
tesla wrote: I understand perfectly where you coming from tesla only thing is from an evil genius mind point of view why didn't the towers colapse immediately after impact of the planes? Detonating the allegedly explosives would have been done on impact and if those explosives would have been placed with the intention to collapse the buildings and have been detonated on impact... Why did it take so long for the towers to fall down and not immediately if there where explosives placed to bring it all down? Why didn't we see anything if the explosives where detonated after impact? after all cameras where all over the place from all angles? You should have seen flashes and heard sounds of detonation. And if this is true that the U.S. Gov detonated the towers then i am fearfull for the future of the world with such a powerfull country on the war path i would fear that even more then the terrorists that are out there as of now
A friend loaned me "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Griffin that covers most of the bases of this conspiracy. I really wasn't too interested in reading it, but to shut up my knucklehead buddy, I spent a couple of hours soaking up the highlights. To be honest, I didn't find the info on the twin towers collapse overly compelling... I still find it hard to believe the towers didn't immediately collapse on the initial impact. A passenger plane travelling at 550mph is an amazing amount of force. The parts I found personally troubling were the lack of procedures in handling "runaway" airliners and the collapse of WTC 7. On the collapse of WTC 7, I lived in Philly when Meridian Place burned in '91 and it was still standing there a decade later - that fire raged for over 20 hours, but no signs of collapse ever occured. They finally had to tear it down a few years ago. I don't know if WTC 7 is the conspiracy's "smoking gun", but I would have expected FEMA to be a bit more thorough in their investigation of it. I mean, a small fire breaks out in a building, it falls down a few hours later and all FEMA says is, "the evidence in the collapse is inconclusive". I think a lot of this conspiracy talk would have been squelched if FEMA had done a better job with their investigation. Honestly, in the wake of Katrina, FEMA's poor handling of the 911 investigation isn't all that surprising is it?
Well, judging from this article, it seems apparent, that immediately after he was inaugurated, Bush ordered some agent to go plant some bombs underneath the super structure of the WTC and wait for his master plan to come to fruition. He waited until several flights from Boston were hijacked and waited until they hit the buildings. He then ordered (Cheney perhaps) to set off the bombs underneath the foundation of the WTC so that the building collapsed. This was done, so that we could go after a country (Afghanistan) because, well, because it looked fun. Bush really saw no other way to get congress to pass a law to let the federal government monitor internet access at libraries. It also allowed all the politicians to amass a joint sing-a-long in Washington DC. This master plan had been concocted since Bush's presidential campaign, of course. Its really quite amazing than a man, whom the democrats and liberals had called stupid for years, could pull off such an impressive and deeply thought out plan that no one (except a few whacked out liberals and conspiracy theorists) could decipher. Truly a stroke of brilliance. An alternate theory is that the NY port authority (who controls the WTC area) thought that having millions of square feet of rentable office space non-rentable for a good 10 years was a good idea. Or possibly, the owners of the Empire state building were sick of the WTC being taller than their building (a big penis competition had erupted since the 70's) and thought it was time to make theirs the biggest in NYC once again. /sarcasm
Because no scientists would have believed a plane crashing into the WTC buildings would cause it to collapse. And because we all needed horrible footage of the buildings crumbling to watch. Its pshycology. Once again, you're babbling on without reading. They have quotes from dozens of firefighters and people who testify that they heard explosions. A janitor in the building heard explosions in the basement and saw another guy come running out all burned up. But then again, I'm sure you would just assume none of that is true, because you didn't see on a documentary
And juding from science, we all know that jet fuel fire could never have reached a temperature hot enough to collapse the steel structure supports but we believe it anyway because bush said so. We also know from the architect who built the towers that it was designed to withstand such impacts from large planes, but we'll ignore this also, because bush said so. We also know there was molten (liquid) steel being pulled from the basement wreckage weeks after the collapses, and that the jet fuel fire could never have been hot enough to turn steel into molten. We also know that buildings like NEVER COLLAPSE from fires in all of history yet Building 7 just fell from the sky We also know the government ordered the remains of the buildings to be hauled away quickly before more investigating could be done. None of this should make us suspicious of anything at all. /sarcasm
March '01, X-Files spin off show depicts US plot to hijack a Boeing 727 and crash it into WTC to blame foreign terrorists to provoke war. '99, NORAD starts conducting exercises in which airplanes are hijacked and crashed into targets which include the WTC and Pentagon. Basement worker of North WTC North hears explosion below him, then a rumble above him, then saw severely burnt man come out of basement elevator. This link really does help outline some things: http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like." Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span. On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. 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. More -- http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=8&c=y
yo-yo wrote: Take it easy Yo-Yo! I am just expressing my idea on this event and because i am not into your conspiracy theory you don't have the right to say i am babbling! Just keep it real and mature! Those ''explosions'' that where being heard could have been the trusses that gave way. I can imagine that would give a explosion like sound since a lot of force is involved with it. There are some of the questions that where said before that i find strange such as where are the tapes of the pentagon impact of other security cams in the area i agree but to go as far saying U.S. Gov are terrorists killing their own people...i wouldn't go that far. Selfish? I agree the war in iraq proves it but i really don't care about that since a dictator that stands in the way of keeping a steady oil flow to the States and preventing a healthy world economy deserves being overthrown. If he was otherwise meaning not a dictator i would have thought otherwise but since he was i think he was the perfect candidate. And scientists not believing the planes could have caused the collapse on impact? If they would drop then they would drop wouldn't they? hard to deny that! Even if it is a perfect excuse to create an enemy to start a war, what is being gained from going to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan? If the terrorist themself where operating under U.S. Gov command? That only costed money! To go to war with Iraq the whole 9/11 wasn't necessary because the WMD story was sufficient as has been proven. And that had a motive and that was the oil.
In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage†(FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, And yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.
Your quote seems to support there must have been something else besides the obvious plane/fires.... how exactly did all that molten steel get in the basement and rage for 21 days???
It's not because you disagree, it's because you keep chiming in with comments that have already been covered if you had the read the article which is what this thing is based on.
So the building was expected to stay after the impact with a xxx tun plane? Even if it was not the fire, nor the damage was the building designed to support a huge fuck up plane on one of the top floors?
Yeah...so, you are also keeping up the same arguments. And what's next the Pentagon not being hit by an airplane? And do you really believe a moran like GWB can be involved with such an eloborate conspiracy an attack on American Citizens?