Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
“were you replying to someone? No one else had posted anything for hours… Especially not about that.”
No one has been talking about explosives, steel and thermite?
Really?
Anyway, if you read the link I posted Ron Craig also goes into the molten metal claim that you were asking about.
Angrysoba,
yes, I missed it, somewhere way back, I suppose. I’m sure there’s a simple explanation.
Night night!
Here’s a video on the “pools of molten steel” claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YXzjAKJQOg&feature=related
Night night!
Sweet dreams.
Ok, so 9/11 was an inside job then. All sorted.
“Ok, to sum up, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!”
Seconded!
Incidentally, I posted a “final” comment with links to videos about (1) “audible explosions”, (2) “conservation/transfer of momentum at the WTC” and (3) “conservation of angular momentum in the case of the South Tower” but craig’s automatic filter stopped it from being posted. The same thing happened a few days earlier although he later let that one through. So maybe he’ll do the same with the “final” one.
Anyway, Angrysoba, I appreciate that you are sincere in your beliefs (or “a true believer” if you prefer) and that you’re not a paid shill, but you are in deep denial about the salient facts of 9/11. Refusing to understand the evidence presented to you is not the same thing as debunking it. Refusing to concede a point because it weakens the case you are making, even when you know the point is valid is intellectually dishonest. I don’t mind people whose opinions differ from mine on important issues, but I find it hard to respect people whose regard for their own opinion causes them to ignore facts and to deride anyone who has the audacity to present them.
And this is my “final, final” comment on this thread.
So many years in, it’s obviously a religion to you.
I can be convinced that 911 was an inside jobby job. I just need to see evidence. As Sagan told us (I’m sure others said it before), extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sure Angrysoba feels the same way.
By the way, where’s the evidence of detonation cord? They found my friend’s head months after; why didn’t they one piece of detonation cord?
Were the steelworkers in on the conspiracy as well?
“They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group.”
I’m not persuaded by the 9/11 conspiracy theories at all. But I’m not sure the above is correct. For how long did Bletchley Park remain secret? And how many were involved … many hundreds, including quite junior staff? And how many employees and former employees have told us about GCHQ? Watergate was quite different, it seems to me.
Ok, to sum up again, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!
Tim Groves wrote: “Anyway, Angrysoba, I appreciate that you are sincere in your beliefs (or “a true believer” if you prefer) and that you’re not a paid shill, but you are in deep denial about the salient facts of 9/11. Refusing to understand the evidence presented to you is not the same thing as debunking it. Refusing to concede a point because it weakens the case you are making, even when you know the point is valid is intellectually dishonest.”
I don’t know about you, Larry, but I am struggling to understand where evidence exists that I have refused to understand.
Again, no audible explosions. I’ll have to assume that they are somewhere in the ether.
I STILL have never heard a coherent argument for controlled demolition, and Tim Groves, MJ and Glenn et. al. seem to have simply skirted over it or said that they don’t need to provide evidence or any counter-theory.
I simply won’t concede that the towers couldn’t collapse on the basis of a video that shows a controlled demolition once went wrong. It’s irrelevant.
So where is the evidence?
“”Ok, to sum up, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!”
Tim Groves: Seconded! ”
CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN???!??!?
Do you have any idea what those words mean?
Larry: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m sure Angrysoba feels the same way.”
Sure, but I’m feeling generous and so I’ll say, “A claim requires evidence”.
Again, its next to non-existent and the “theory” requires all kinds of deus ex machina to pull it out of its many holes.
Ok, to sum up yet again, it’s been conclusively proven on this thread that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. Thanks to all for participating and keeping it mostly civil. I salute you!
Cheers for the additional comments guys. 😉
Jaded/Borat – but I thought you thought that the Jews did it.
You do get some funny ideas Lamby. I suggest no one listens to this man’s incoherent ramblings.
Well, Soba, if you are going to take that crowing like a cockerel on top of his own pile of chicken shit attitude, I suppose I’ll have to make a post-final comment or two.
You want evidence of “audible explosions” at the Twin Towers. This compilation of MSM news reports should clear that up for you. But let’s see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4WtRXqwVQ
Here’s the South Tower, just prior to the global collapse (at about 1 minute into the vid), you can clearly see a corner of the tower – aluminum cladding and major steel column/grid – no windows here ?” being eaten away by something very hot and red before giving way, then comes the explosive outburst from all around the same floor simultaneously, putting out a much lighter colored smoke/dust than had been emerging until that point. Note too how close to the corner the cloud is tinged with red. Not too how powerfully it explodes from the first. Finally, note how so many of the eye-witnesses who wern’t screaming “Oh my God!” was describing the event as “an explosion”, “a huge expolosion”, “exploding”, etc. This was, of course, before the official word that there were no explosions had gotten around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA&feature=player_embedded
For an easy-peasy guide to how conservation of angular momentum would have prevented what was observed when the WTC South Tower collapsed, please sea here.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/conservation-of-angular-momentum-in.html
For an easy-peasy guide to how conservation of angular momentum would have prevented what was observed when the WTC South Tower collapsed, please sea here.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/conservation-of-angular-momentum-in.html
F**k me, I think he actually really has buggered off!
With only a bunch of sayanim budgerigars to defend it the official 9/11 cover story was bound to be proven a crock of horsecrap!
The 1976-79 House Assassinations Committee found the murders of JFK and MLK to be the result of CONSPIRACIES.Moreover these were found to have been conspiracies in which the FBI and investigating authorities had been woefully negligent to the point of allowing them to proceed unimpeded.
angri and Larry and the other sapskulls who stand by the official 9/11 story are peddling the myth that the government doesn’t do conspiracies!LOL! Their hopeless naivety is built wholly on the utterly ahistorical and fallacious idea that the elites who rule us have only our best interests at heart.
They’re either peddling this myth because they’re sayanim,government agents or because they’re just so dumb they actually believe it!
In the case of 9/11,individuals who were actually doing their job trying to protect the US and prevent the attacks were actively discouraged from doing so by their superiors.These superiors were rewarded with promotions.
One example of someone,among many,just trying to do his job was Michael Springman at the Visa Express Programme in Jeddah.He was prevented by the CIA from stopping militants tied to Bin Laden from getting US visas.
It’s the same story researchers encounter when they investigate things like the US perennial “War on Drugs”.The Bureau of Narcotics founded in 1930 was so successful that when it began to uncover the Establishment’s ties to organized crime it had to be shut down by the CIA and FBI!
At the highest level of the state investigative authorities charged with protecting the US there appears to have been active collusion on the part of the dual nationality/neo-con elements in the Bush administration with the Moshcepoche/Mossad intent on bringing off their “new Pearl Harbour” cassus belli.
Check out Greg Felton’s The Host and the Parasite to uncover the extent of dual nationality treachery in the Bush administration.
Felton has been accused by ADL et al of being “anti-semitic”-now you can’t get a higher recommendation,a surer suggestion that the guy’s on to something than that!
I think you know full well that that is not what I am talking about.
I am talking about audible explosions that caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
The first explosion, with the firefighters talking on the phone, is, if I am not mistaken from Steve Spak’s documentary made at the site.
The towers had already fallen by the time it was made.
The rest of that mishmash involves people talking about suspicious parcels or possible car bombs. They are clearly not the type of things are talking about.
Cars were known to have overheated and exploded at the site and no doubt that can be found video on which that was heard.
I am talking about a video of the COLLAPSE in which explosions are audible. I am sure I have made that stipulation clear.
Chris Bollyn posted yesterday on the latest impediment to the relatives’ bid for justice and our getting to the truth-another 9/11 Trial Cancelled:
http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11656
Bollyn also posted on the Zionist PTech front software company earlier this month.
Bookmark Bollyn!
The second video… well… all I can say is you see things very differently to me.
The corner gave way, yes. But that is the same camera angle as I had shown before to show that it was a structural failure due to the steel losing its strength.
“aluminum cladding and major steel column/grid – no windows here ?” being eaten away by something very hot and red before giving way”
Hot and red? Fire, perhaps? No windows? I don’t understand the relevance.
“Finally, note how so many of the eye-witnesses who wern’t screaming “Oh my God!” was describing the event as “an explosion”, “a huge expolosion”, “exploding”, etc. This was, of course, before the official word that there were no explosions had gotten around.”
The collapse made a noise. No one is saying that it was silent. And given that as far as I understand the collapse began with a large amount of the steel being unable to support ten ot fifteen stories of steel and concrete which swung downwards into the impact zones before scything through the floor I would expect a large noise. But that is different to the sounds of explosives.
Click on the link to any of these from Implosion World for a controlled demolition sound:
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
“This was, of course, before the official word that there were no explosions had gotten around.”
You might have to explain this a but more. Are you saying that people knew there were exlosions consistent with a controlled demolition but somehow none of the videos picked them up and then the people who made the claim were told to hush up about it?
I’ll have to get back to the conservation of angular momentum.
I don’t have time to look at it right now.
Thanks for posting it.
“I am talking about a video of the COLLAPSE in which explosions are audible. I am sure I have made that stipulation clear.”
I heard explosions while the buildings were collapsing in the video I posted. Also, many ey witnesses are quoted as having heard explosions, some at the time of collapse, on that video. And there are other videos on YouTube in which explosions are audible at the time of the collapses.
Of course, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. Are denying that there were any audible explosions or that none of the noises audible during the collapses was due to an explosion? And are you going to say that the entire burden of proof is on me to prove that some of those noises were explosions? How tiresome!
I’m afraid I’m no more able to tell the difference between the sound of a bunch of explosions and the sound of a falling skyscraper or the sound of a heard of buffalo galloping across the praries than you are. But some people are quite skilled at such thing.
For example, this guy, rebelforgod, has done an audio spectrum analysis and he says he identified demolition charges, so there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDSGm2jhdA0&feature=related
“The collapse made a noise. No one is saying that it was silent. And given that as far as I understand the collapse began with a large amount of the steel being unable to support ten ot fifteen stories of steel and concrete which swung downwards into the impact zones before scything through the floor I would expect a large noise. But that is different to the sounds of explosives.”
And you can discriminate between these different noises? When picked up by a camcorder mike 100 meters or more away in the middle of a noisy Manhatten major disaster? You’re ears are better than mine.
Also, you state that “understand the collapse began with a large amount of the steel being unable to support ten ot fifteen stories of steel and concrete”. What makes you that that would happen. Steel is a very good heat conductor. It would be hard to heat a section of it to the point where it was hot enough to become unable to support the load above it with jet fuel (which would have burnd off or ran down the outside walls or stairwells in a couple of minutes anyway) and office furnishings for fuel. Fires much bigger, brighter and longer have failed to heat steel to the point where it lost its load-bearing capacity.
Moreover, as Frank Legge has observed, ” even if the steel did get hot enough for collapse to start, the manner of collapse could only be explained by explosives. This proof rests on the fact that steel hardens as it distorts thus the initial movement must be slow as extra heat has to be supplied to overcome the hardening. No such slow initial movement can be seen.”
Soba, the WTC towers were constructed of three-dimensional steel grids that would have resisted any tendency to collapse all the way and would have absorbed the energy of a collapse had it started, which it wouldn’t have.
Also NIST’s own experimental and simulation work found no evidence that the steel could have been hot enough to give way when it did. Legge (2006) goes on (and on and on…:
“The conclusion of the NIST report is that fire and aircraft damage caused the initiating event that brought down the towers. Within the body of their report however is the statement that no steel was found which had been heated above 600 oC.This arouses suspicion as such temperatures should not be sufficient to bring about collapse. The NIST report provides diagrams depicting plane damage and data derived from their fire and temperature simulations. The report asserts that the simulations correspond to a satisfactory degree with the observed fires as recorded in videos and photographs. From these it appears that the initial collapse in WTC 1, if it had occurred, would have been at storey 95 or 96. That is the region where the building was most damaged by plane impact. There is little damage shown for storey 97. There is at least one video showing collapse starting at storey 96.
Study of the NIST diagrams shows that at the time of collapse the perimeter columns were not hot enough to place the building at risk. Most significantly the diagrams also show that the core areas of all storeys listed, from 92 to 99, spanning the plane damaged region, had cooled down substantially prior to collapse. The core area was hottest at the 30 and 45 minute readings but collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100 to 600 oC. Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150 oC. Videos show that the core started to collapse before the perimeter.”
Tim: Thanks for those posts about the explosions, bombs in the basement. I didn’t manage to turn up such a good compilation while looking the other day.
A short while back there were these yucking sounds emanating from True-Believer posters while they typed about “silent explosions”. There’s not much silent about the explosions we heard on those reports, which many witnesses testified about. Unless one sticks their fingers in their ears and says “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA” for the duration. Sadly, that is exactly the approach taken by a True Believer when appeals to authority, ridicule, and pointing to a sacred NIST document doesn’t do the job.
And now, we can say “9/11 was an inside job – motion carried!”
“NIST’s own experimental and simulation work found no evidence that the steel could have been hot enough to give way when it did.”
Have you read the full report? Have you also read the conclusion of the report which stated that the cause of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was the combination of the impact of the plane and the fire burning within.
You should read the actual document instead of copying what someone had put on a website.
Cesar Pelli, the architect of the Petronas towers in Malaysia made an accurate comments that “no building is prepared for this kind of stress.”
Another report by three engineers at the University of Edinburgh provisionally concluded that the fires alone (without any damage from the airplanes) could have been enough to bring down the WTC buildings.
Even the chief engineer who built the WTC said that it was not built to take the impact of a 767 flying a full speed. Although this is disputed there is no conclusive evidence to show otherwise. He also said that it was a testiment to the building design that it remained in tact for a hour to allow so many people to escape.
But I guess this will still not convince you…
Chris, the chief engineer might have said the WTC “was not built to take the impact of a 767 flying a full speed”, and surely it wasn’t built to house someone carrying a mobile telephone either, for obvious reasons. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t do so and besides, the 767 was not flying at full speed.
Is there any evidence that any steel had been heated by the fire above 600 degrees F, and even then for more than a short period? There were people clearly standing in the gap created by the planes, so it’s unlikely there was a huge furnace raging away in there.
Have you read the NIST report yourself? It concerns itself with events up to the initiation of collapse, and does not explain how the standard laws of conservation of momentum are not observed in the collapse itself. That is something a promising and honest O-level student should declare to be a sticking point. It assumes a heat-weakened core, and neglects that the core was the primary structure – the backbone of the WTC buildings – rather than the external structure. “Global collapse ensued”, we are told, but not how that global collapse itself proceeded.
Lofty assertions from a set of government stooges do not convince me, but apparently that’s more than enough “evidence” for yourself.