| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 12:21:25 AM
Strange..accident...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4239628.stm
and a warning from "al Qaeda" but "downplayed" now...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/12/alqaeda.tape/index.html
you know there was a "powerdown" on 9/8 and 9/9 in 2001 at the World Trade Center, rendering the cameras useless and it never happened before those days.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
and many more...
strange...keep this in mind, especially with the 39% approval rating. |
| 32 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Arthen |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 04:09:08 AM
To quote Peter Gabriel:
"Seeing things that were not there/on a wing, on a prayer/in this state of disrepair/..." |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/19/2005 : 02:02:33 AM
ugh.
look. i'm done arguing about why the united states government did not plan and execute the attacks on 9/11. because honestly, neither you nor i have enough reasonable proof either way. i'll admit that i'm not entirely sure about some of the things listed. i'll admit that some of it seems off, but it's the same shit from the same people every time something blows up or goes wrong. are they really free thinking individuals who don't go buy corporate news or whatever image they're going for? or do they just jump on everything everfucking thing they can, because they thrive on it/like it/have a fixation on it? maybe if they didn't shit bricks every time they get the chance to pin something on the us government, i'd be more inclined to listen to them. but it's every goddamn thing without fail. to me, it just screams "desperate to find hiddening meanings and conspiracies." you want to talk about keeping people in fear, this is just the sort of thing. i think you're creating your own boogeymen, which i find strange, because last time i checked the government was pretty much handing them out. that makes me sound complacent, and maybe i am. maybe i'm not looking hard enough, but maybe you're looking too hard and seeing things that aren't there. i'm not saying stop paying attention, but just try to take it a little easier.
that's really all i have to say about this. so, if you want to believe that the us government caused the flooding in new orleans in order to tighten the nwo's grip on america, if you want to believe that the us government perpetrated 9/11, and if you want to believe the english government was behind the london bombings, then ok. enjoy your fear and call it truth. and when earthquakes hit california and do a lot of damage, have fun with your theories on that. i'm sure prisonplanet and these others will have that covered for you.
also, thank you for the list of facts. honestly, it's been the only thing i've read about this that's worth a damn, and it got me thinking a little. |
| Kazi |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 1:48:57 PM
MUST WATCH!!!
Honestly, you WILL THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG if you watch this movie...it's a documentary full of real factual evidence--not speculation. It talks about the Carlyle Group... The Carlyle Group is a private investment bank which doesn't come to the publics attention very often but it is one of the biggest American (ed: USA) investors of the defense industry, telecom, property and financial services.
What is the Carlyle Group? Who are the people behind the name? And how much power does Carlyle have? This Movie explains it...and it gives very believable explainations for why we really are in Iraq, and how certain people are profitting heavilly from it.
Download it then play in realplayer
This is a MUST WATCH...seriously.
Dan P you will love this I am sure.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 1:48:41 PM
i found an interesting reply to popluar mechanics 9/11:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 12:43:11 PM
this is kinda interesting.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm
building 7 was only 47 stories.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
|
| Kazi |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 11:54:41 AM
excuse me, the above quote was takin from PJK, not guitarist |
| Kazi |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 11:50:43 AM
"But to extrapolate this mistrust to the point of accusing him and/or other individuals or organizations in the U.S. government of conspiring to destroy the World Trade Center and the thousands of people in it at the time is not only absurd, irrational and ignorant, but also inspires the administration’s defenders on other issues."
Guitarist...I'd really like to know why you think it's ubsurd for any free thinking individual to entertain thoughts like these. It's a fact that we are lied to every day. That doesn't mean our government was behind the attacks, but it does mean that I wouldn't put it past them.
I actually feel just as skeptical about anyone who isn't curious about the 911 attacks. Even more skeptical about someone who calls anyone who questions the government doing terrible things "irrational and absurd."
What about this iraq war right now? Thousands of Soldiers stationed there to fight insurgency over a cause that we completely made up? If the government is ok potentially letting thousands of American soldiers and other innocent people die in a bogus war we started, why do you think they wouldn't be above smashing a few planes into some buildings and incidentally killing a few thousand people?
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 09:52:40 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342936/
Congressman: Atta papers destroyed on orders
Pentagon denies having any documents on lead hijacker prior to 9/11 |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 09:10:00 AM
I'm going to try to calmly and succinctly go over Benjamin Chertoff.... In late November of 2004 my wife handed me a stack of media I had to contact and amongst it was Popular Mechanics doing a piece on popular 9-11 'theories'. So I call and I talk to Benjamin Chertoff; we've now learned is a close family member of the Homeland Security Director, according to press reports. And I've talked to him and I've talked to others and I thought it was a fake interview. I've never thought an interview wasn't real. Of the hundreds of newspaper, TV interviews, the thousands of radio interviews I've done, I've never thought that a reporter was fake. People from school newspapers sound more credible and serious. USA Today, Washington Post, New York Times, these are normally focused serious people. Even if they're adversaries. I thought that the interview wasn't real, it was so shotty. I called Popular Mechanics ... one of the chief editors called back and said "Yes it's indeed real." They swore to me this is not a hit piece, we're just looking at the popular theories.
Then the headline on the magazine "9-11 Lies: Debunking" and it's "conclusive" they say. This is what they engaged in. I talked to Chertoff and others, on every point they'd raise to me I'd email them mainstream news articles, documents, Larry Silverstein saying they blew up WTC 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html). Suddenly they wouldn't want to talk about that, they'd move on to something else. A lot of stuff they were going to put in there got dropped because I told their chief editor, "Look I can tell this is a hit piece and you're trying to liable me, you better watch yourself." A whole bunch of stuff they were gonna do wasn't in there about me 'cause I could see what they were doing. ...It sure enough was [a hit piece]. There are just so many facets to it.
Some of the things they debunked I agree are not provable. Number 1 they build a straw man (noun: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted). Of the 16 points, 4 or 5 of them are questionable. ...You could find somebody on the internet saying space aliens carried out 9-11 or the planes were holograms. I don't believe that. You can find people that think space aliens killed Kennedy, no the government did. But the media says okay ... "If you think somebody else killed Kennedy, you think it was space aliens. That's the straw man argument. They did that. But a bunch of the points like Building 7, no mention of Silverstein, no mention of the firefighters telling reporters to get back we're gonna pull it, that's Associated Press. There's none of that.
But one of the really sterling examples from the piece, that I pray none of you will buy. It's online, you can read it there. Please don't spend your money; and if you have a subscription to them, don't be lazy, call and cancel. They deserve to have people boycott them. ...When I try to look at the spectrum of propaganda it's so hard to know where to start. One of the biggest smoking guns of disinfo in the article is No stand-down order ... No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. 'On September 11th Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.,' says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. 'They failed to do their job.' 'There is only one explanation for this,' writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. 'Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9-11.'
'Fact,' - now they're going to tell you fact. It's like Rumsfeld telling you fact on Face The Nation, 'I never said there were weapons of mass destruction, it's an urban legend.' Well just 'cause you say that's a fact Rumsfeld we all know it's a lie; 'cause we have you on video. - 'On 9-11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the continuous 48 states.' Yeah 'cause they were all part of the giant drill. Which is what Associated Press reported. 'No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of the missing planes.' That's not true. 'They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,' says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times. ...They go on to say that there's a claim that planes have been scrambled hundreds of times before 9-11. They say 'No that's not true, in the decade before 9-11 it only happened one time. One time.' ...The very Maj. they quote, Maj. Douglas Martin, he told the Associated Press that they'd over 60 times, scrambled them and had them intercepted in the year before September 11th. ...I've talked to pilots who've had radio problems and F-16's fly up next to them. Everybody knows this, not just Maj. Douglas Martin the Public Affairs Officer. ...We have the public record, everybody knows this, this is public knowledge.
The question is, why do we put up with this? ...This is how they supposedly debunk everything. Then he gets up on the radio Saturday night, Sunday morning, and tells Tens of Millions of people that, 'Well Mr. Jones can call and deffend himself,' and an hour later 'Well I guess he isn't gonna call in and defend himself because he can't, he can't refute these facts.' Just because you say 'fact fact fact' doesn't mean it's a fact. While I was being interviewed and other members of the Popular Propoganda staff I kept saying aren't you gonna talk about public officials being warned not to fly. Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MSNBC, Salman Rushdie, Times of London, CBS News reporting on Ashcroft. Are you gonna talk about Bush on Cipro, White House Press Secretary Harry Fleischer admitted it. The whole cabinet on Cipro four weeks before it showed up in Boca Raton, Florida. Are you gonna talk about CIA insider trading? 'No no no.' Will you talk about Larry Silverstein saying that he pulled the buildings? I've sent you the video clip, have you watched it? 'No I haven't had time.' Will you call Larry Silverstein and ask him, he says he blew it up. 'Um, no I don't think so ...' or 'maybe.' Then I talked to his editor, I said I'm sending this to you. Will you call Larry Silverstein? 'Oh we're very interested in that. And this isn't a hit piece, no it's not, we promise. We just want to see what you guys think.'
The bottom line is this, people aren't listening to these people anymore. They're not listening. They're not believing it. The population knows by and large - they may not know all the details, but they know information is being twisted, it's being spun, it's being fabricated, it's being made up, it's being white washed. They know that. Your credibility is at an all time low. It's just that simple. Your credibility is gone. It's now part of the record that the government has been caught Thousands and Thousands of times lying to us. So is it any surprise now, that we have ariticles like this from News Max: Web News Grows, Papers Spiral Down ? (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/6/195811.shtml) I watched some TV this weekend ... every news show I saw was attacking the 'new media.' Talking about how uncredible it is and how it's taking over. ...They even tried to use the White House's own male prostitute madam as 'See how uncredible the alternative media is?' Well that's not the alternative media, that's one of your boy toys Lord Bush. That's one of the Globalist little minions. One of his influence peddler's infiltrating the alternate press through a neo con Web site openly funded by the White House. They have the nerve on two seperate shows I saw. The Daily Show was one and CNN was another - to go on the air and imply because of the Gannon story that 'Oh see, that's how uncredible the alternative press is.' John Stewart used the word man whore. 'Alternative press has got man whores running it.' So you've got your fake reporters out there and then it's our fault. See, no no, you're trying to infiltrate the alternative media. Bush has paid Tens of Millions for fake blogs, Seventy-Six Million for fake news casts just for Medicaid. Armstrong Williams ... there's dozens and dozens.... I hear it locally on the radio, people. I hear locally Federally funded Austin Air Force ads, that's a group wanting to get admissions testing on cars and I've called up before and they go 'Yeah it is a paid spot, how did you know that?' Packaged into the local newscast. It's everywhere. Look, I had these people offer me a Million bucks, in the first year, Six years ago, to go become a neo con. 'You could be the next Rush Limbaugh. Just stop talking about black helicopters and the New World Order. Here's the contract, we're gonna start you out on Fifteen juggernaut marquee stations and if you play ball after the first year,' I was gonna get a million, 'you'll get triple that.' And you know what I told them, I said, 'You can take your offer and you know what you can do with it!'
So we have this atmosphere now in the Country where we're learning how many of the press are paid off and controlled. But there's other forms of control, the globalist editors and controllers can just look at other writings and different reporters out there and pick people that instinctively have the establishment agenda and mind-set. That's another form of control. Then on top of that you have blood. You have these societies. You have this elite and its nepotism where they put their own minions into power. And it is being reported that Chertoff's cousin penned Popular Mechanics' 9-11 hit piece. 'Who is Benjamin Chertoff, the senior researcher at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press har learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his cousin now heads. This is exactly the kind of journalism one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's senior researcher, directly. Chertoff said he was the senior researcher of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said I don't know. Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist - the one who never answers the phone. Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, Yes, of course, he is a cousin.'
This guy has the classic M.O. 24 years old, 23 when he was first in Iraq. Reporting for the New World Order. Then he comes back and lands the big job at Popular Mechanics. Regardless folks, if he is Chertoff's blood, ... this is clear conflict of interest. We need to get the blogs working on this. This is a serious issue. Maybe we're on to something like the Gannon situation with more of these plants ... it fits the M.O. My nose, my snout ... smells a big gigantic rotten rat under the floor boards. I suggest we pull the floor boards up and investigate. Though it is rancid and stinky, as the hound dogs we are, we have to go after our quarry. Fearlessly. And that's exactly what we're gonna do. We're good little attack dogs for freedom. If you want to play hardball we're gonna play hardball with you for ... I'm launching a Five year campaign. I've decided. Yes, Five years you will routinely be investigated. And I know it's dangerous to go up against the Homeland Security bloodline. I understand that. But we're gonna expose it. We know we're on their radar. They're attacking us, you might as well defend ourselves. The best defense is a good offense.
Transcribed by Benedict Vincent.
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 09:04:52 AM
about that Popular Mechanics Propoganda article...
do you know who penned that?
Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Homeland Security Director, Michael CHertoff.
So he has found his cousin's brand new job is for good reason.
please. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 08:23:18 AM
yea there was no bombs and no way there could be how could the mainstream media even try and cover the topic...
http://www.mypetgoat.tv/video/Bomb_Montage.WMV
bah. |
| PJK |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 11:01:32 PM
Hate to take up all the room for this and frankly I am getting tired of this thread, but I guess I have to post this to back up my feelings.
It is truly astonishing how many people believe the trash, misconceptions and outright lies concerning the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001. There is widespread distrust of the current U.S. administration under President George W. Bush – and rightly so. Southern Cross Review has published many harshly criticizing articles in this direction, as our readers well know. But to extrapolate this mistrust to the point of accusing him and/or other individuals or organizations in the U.S. government of conspiring to destroy the World Trade Center and the thousands of people in it at the time is not only absurd, irrational and ignorant, but also inspires the administration’s defenders on other issues. The following investigation was carried out by the staff of “Popular Mechanics” magazine. It is reproduced in full here – except for the photos, which have appeared elsewhere in the press. We believe that the information contained herein in important, because it is the truth supported by expert evidence, and effectively debunks the irresponsible conspiracy theories which are polluting he the internet. We could of course have simply referred you to the PM website (see below), but one never knows how long the report will be there. It will remain in the SCR Back Issues archives as long as we feel necessary. [Ed.]
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS [of Popular Mechanics]
The Planes
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.
Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."
FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."
No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."
Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.
FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.
While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.
Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."
FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: 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."
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: 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."
Seismic Spikes
CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."
FACT: "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.
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.
THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.
Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.
FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.
"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."
Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
FLIGHT 93
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.
The White Jet
CLAIM: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."
FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.
Roving Engine
CLAIM: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
Indian Lake
CLAIM: "Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."
FACT: Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.
F-16 Pilot
CLAIM: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."
FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."
Popular Mechanics consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following were particularly helpful.
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
|
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 10:22:08 PM
Originally posted by Kazi
From Wikipedia:
# The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes. It is unknown if any FDR were recovered from the wreckage.
Perhaps because the planes crashed into two of the largest metal structures erected by man.
# The WTC 1, 2, and 7 buildings are the only steel frame buildings in history to collapse due to fire.
Coincidentally, WTC 1 & 2 also happen to have been among the tallest and largest structures in the world. It's phenomenal that it was standing at all. It was not uncommon for people on the upper floors to feel the building sway due to fierce winds and the fact that a structure that large, even metal and concrete, will bend much like a piece of sheet metal.
# Seconds before both towers collapsed, people in and around the towers reported small earth tremors, this is also shown where cameras mounted on tripods positioned directly towards the towers also shook shortly before the towers collapsed.
Once again, it's the twin towers. If they're about to fall down, chances are the ground is going to shake a bit when that unimaginable amount of mass is shifting so rapidly and fiercely.
# Smoke was reported coming from the street level and basement around the North Tower seconds before it collapsed.
I can't easily think up some explanation for that one, other than the possibility that debris and shrapnel raining down may have sparked ground level flames.
# The WTC 7 building was not struck by any airliner nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers relies primarily on these two details. Building 7 is said to have collapsed due to having been pelted by debris from the twin towers. This building showed no signs of instability until the moment it suddenly collapsed into its own footprint approximately 6 hours after the attacks.
Building 7 still confuses the fuck out of me, and I don't know what to make of it either way. I admit this is kind of a suspicious thing to happen, but then again, how many buildings next to the towers remained intact?
# The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for months after their collapse. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, reported seeing pools of "literally molten steel" at the WTC. This was also confirmed by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 3000 °F while the highest speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers is 2000 °F. (American Free Press, New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation, April 12, 2004)
Ok, #1, a structure doesn't have to melt in order to fall, it only needs to get hot enough to expand, weaken, and buckle, not even come close to melting. #2, note the word speculation. No one nkows how hot the fires were for sure, and chances are these speculations are not reliable predictions. The fires could have been hotter in some parts of the building that trap heat, such as an elevator shaft.
# The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a characteristic of, but not necessarily indicative of, a controlled demolition.
It's also characteristic of a building falling down...at the speed of gravity. Generally, that's how an object falls. Gravity. You know, the force that made the twin towers fall. I don't understand what they're trying to say here, it may just be bad wording.
# Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft. long. Soon after the attacks, most of the steel columns were loaded onto trucks and shipped to Asia. This may have no relevance, as some of the largest users of scrap metal reside in the Pacific Rim. Some, however, point out that the area was considered a crime scene and that the WTC materials should have been preserved for an extensive forensic criminal investigation. The quick removal of debris is often cited as evidence of a governmental cover up
I don't find it suspicious or sneaky at all that they carted the debris away as fast as possible. Isn't that what they got paid to do?
I don't pretend to be an expert by any means in any of the areas I'm talking about, but those are just some plausible explanations that popped into my head reading over these. Most of the things mentioned didn't strike me as being evidential of foul-play, other than the foul-play of two jets flying into two towers. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 8:47:20 PM
they did fall at almost the precise speed of gravity. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 8:45:36 PM
yes! see, now this is what i'm talking about. just straight facts. no spin, no subtle use of language. just a list, siting sources. this is the manner of thing we need. i, for one, am more inclined to be swayed by this then by lengthy articles. it's been my experience that the more words someone uses, more they're either hiding something or trying to persuade. i'll take a list of facts anyday. thank you.
i'll admit the most interesting point was the last one, about the handling of debis.
i'd just like to point out, and i think that someone else already has, that the steel structure wouldn't need to hit melting point for the building to collapse. now i don't know a lot about about this sort of thing (i'm no blacksmith), so feel free to correct me, but would it be at all possible for steel to melt over a period of time if placed over, say, the smoldering ruins of a building? or would the fire itself need to be that hot to begin with. assuming the eye witness accounts are true, of course.
also, the people in the buildings moments before they fell would likely feel earth tremors, when you stop to consider they were hit by airplanes. i know girl who saw the 2nd plane hit with her own eyes.
also, let's suppose there were bombs. why assume the government did it? could it be possible it was another element of the attack itself. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 11:32:13 AM
awesome dude, thanks. |
| Kazi |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 11:10:23 AM
From Wikipedia:
# The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes. It is unknown if any FDR were recovered from the wreckage.
# The WTC 1, 2, and 7 buildings are the only steel frame buildings in history to collapse due to fire.
# Seconds before both towers collapsed, people in and around the towers reported small earth tremors, this is also shown where cameras mounted on tripods positioned directly towards the towers also shook shortly before the towers collapsed.
# Smoke was reported coming from the street level and basement around the North Tower seconds before it collapsed.
# The WTC 7 building was not struck by any airliner nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers relies primarily on these two details. Building 7 is said to have collapsed due to having been pelted by debris from the twin towers. This building showed no signs of instability until the moment it suddenly collapsed into its own footprint approximately 6 hours after the attacks.
# The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for months after their collapse. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, reported seeing pools of "literally molten steel" at the WTC. This was also confirmed by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 3000 °F while the highest speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers is 2000 °F. (American Free Press, New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation, April 12, 2004)
# The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a characteristic of, but not necessarily indicative of, a controlled demolition.
# Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft. long. Soon after the attacks, most of the steel columns were loaded onto trucks and shipped to Asia. This may have no relevance, as some of the largest users of scrap metal reside in the Pacific Rim. Some, however, point out that the area was considered a crime scene and that the WTC materials should have been preserved for an extensive forensic criminal investigation. The quick removal of debris is often cited as evidence of a governmental cover up |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 9:31:54 PM
i like how there's quotes from random people saying "oh it sounded like a missle to me." as if these people know the difference between the way a missle sounds as compared to a plane about to hit them. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 5:09:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
Also why where every single video tape of the pentagon being hit pulled away and what happened to the plane?
The plane hit the fucking pentagon man. Ever seen a coupe hit head-on with an 18-wheeler? Similar concept, only on a giant scale, and with much wider proportions. What was left of the plane and the survivors was incinerated, unrecognizeable rubble. They took all of the rubble away and threw it into landfills, so chances are they didn't know just which pieces of garbage were once the plane, they just moved it all as quick as possible. From what I recall, they never recovered a black box from the plane, obviously due to the fact that the box was turned into charred, twisted metal.
As for the tapes, I can't explain that one too easily. But, from what I remember, I believe they were asking people to send in any video that they had of the incidents for research, figuring out just how everything happened. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 5:03:13 PM
If I was in power I'd lie all the time. People don't need to know anything. |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 4:58:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kazi
I admit I'm a bit skeptical about the way in which the towers collapsed. The Jet-fuel theory seems believable at first--that the fuel burned so hot it melted the Steel. Truth is, The fire would have to have been THOUSANDS OF DEGREES HOTTER in order to cause steel to buckle.
You are mistaken. The melting temperature of stainless steel is much greater, yes, but it doesn't need to melt in order for the steel to buckle. There only needs to be enough heat to weaken the steel to a point of malleability where the structure can no longer support itself, which is very possible given the heat of the fires that burned. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 2:52:11 PM
The most intruiging thing is that they blew up building 7 for no damn reason. I mean why take out a building that hadn't been hit? If they could pull that one so quick why not the towers? Also why where every single video tape of the pentagon being hit pulled away and what happened to the plane? Did it just burn away completely? Plus why did the towers collapse after the firemen that were in there had been reporting that the fires were out?
Out of all this talk about conspiricies I have yet to hear anyone actually give answers to these questions that were convincing enough for me to drop the idea. I would like to hear some, but until then I don't put it past the administration, especially since there were members of it saying we needed a new pearl harbor. |
| Kazi |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 11:56:30 AM
It is some crazy shit...It's hard not to believe in conspiracy--you could call it that, or you could call it "Truth that's Hidden from us"
I admit I'm a bit skeptical about the way in which the towers collapsed. The Jet-fuel theory seems believable at first--that the fuel burned so hot it melted the Steel. Truth is, The fire would have to have been THOUSANDS OF DEGREES HOTTER in order to cause steel to buckle.
Impolosion seems the more likely cause. Which leaves us thinking, damn, this is pretty coincidental that the power was shut down and
more erie is that Bush's Brother is on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
I am not a straight advocate of Conspiracy Theory, I'm just interested in the truth, and it's fairly obvious that most of the media we get is from giant media conglomorates--companies like Viacom, Aol Time Warner, companies who own all the networks--Fox, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC--companies who have politcal ties, and who will Spin stories any way they choose to ultimately protect and benefit themselves. This is no conspiracy...it's purely factual.
It's then not surpizing that anything suspicious will not be brought to light by most of mainstream media--instead most of it is by underground, suspicious looking websites and publications whose credibility is low, sometimes because they do make up stupid shit, but it's a shame, because there are elements of truth to what they say.
Face it, we are lied to every day. People in power will always abuse it.
|
| PJK |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 06:45:51 AM
I rule!!!!! Hurricane PAM! Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually the film was interesting, creepy, but interesting. Thanks for sharing, Dave! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/14/2005 : 12:50:14 AM
that link isn't working for me. literally. i can't get it to play. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 11:18:17 PM
Prelude to Katrina:
FEMA Hurricane Simulation Pam
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/clips/news/katrina_pam_sim.wmv |
| Arthen |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 9:52:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by PJK
Hey how about some explosives in the faults in California, would it trigger the BIG ONE? If a massive earthquake happens out there, I bet someone will think it the work of Al Quada.
Following certain trends set up by certain members, it would only logically follow that an earthquake would be an act of the Government. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 8:03:59 PM
not to speak for dave, but i believe he thinks the gov't to be the terrorists, not al qaeda. |
| PJK |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 6:25:32 PM
Dave, I know you are really into this exposives in the towers theory and I admit it is an interesting thought but I still don't buy it.
Who knows if the outage in LA will develope into an Al Queda attack, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It they do something there, at this time, they're fools. Their goal supposedly is to kill large numbers of children. To grip the nation in fear. I expect something in a medium size community in the bread basket of the country. Some place less populated, preceived as very safe.
Hey how about some explosives in the faults in California, would it trigger the BIG ONE? If a massive earthquake happens out there, I bet someone will think it the work of Al Quada.
In the end, does it matter if there were bombs in the towers or if the jet fuel it totally to blame for the collaps of the towers? Fact is we all need to keep our guard up. Nothing the government can do short of becoming a police state can prevent terrorism for good. I don't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it, of course we should, but we better get used to the fact that terrorism is here to stay and we were never "safe" just ignorant. I was surprised nothing ever happened before 911.
|
| pants_happy |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 1:43:00 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050913/ap_on_go_ot/katrina_washington_14
relax. apparently we can now all trust gw. he's a good and humble man. and after not admitting any mistakes over his presidency, his turning over a new face is good. he has never lied to us, or taken advantage of national emergencies before. a god fearing man he is. obey your trust. sprite. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 1:19:45 PM
yea I just noticed it and wanted to make sure I documented it this time.
the world trade center's top floors had a POWERDOWN on 9/8/01 and 9/9/01 and that is when the explosives were installed, well that is what the evidence shows, anyway. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/13/2005 : 11:13:16 AM
thank you for the decent sources this time. i don't know what exactly you're getting at with the powerout thing in la. it sounds like just an accident followed by an overreaction. or maybe, considering the threat also mentioned in cnn, a drill of some kind. i wouldn't get to loose lipped with the "we're not going to worry about al qaeda attacking california." because, should they get wind of that, they'll do it because they know we don't believe them. |
|
|
