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).
Recently i saw the film Avatar, well worth the money in my view… however i’ve noticed in USA produced films that the weaponry depicted even in stories way off into the future (Avatar is based in 2154) that the hand weapons used are still based on the bullets and guns system available in the 20th century. It may be that modern day Americans like this image (to which they can relate) and so they continue to use them when you would have expected in another 140 years or so that much more sophisticated weapons systems would have been invented.
My point in all this in relation to the discussion on collapsing buildings is we are assuming that only conventional technology was used to demolish them whereas for all we know the Yanks may have devloped much more impressive demolition systems than is generally known about.
There are many black projects researching all sorts of advanced applications of physics and being good blood thirsty americans, many of them will be linked to warfare, have no doubt of that !
“The inquiries Act” – 2005
Opening criticized by the Law Society of England and Amnesty International.
In America it has been described by a Senator as ‘the public inquiries cover-up bill!’
Perhaps this needs to be explored before 9/11 and 7/7? (Not meant to be a ludicrous diversion)
MJ
I haven’t ever heard of a 767 aeroplane crashing into a skyscraper. I know that a bomber crashed into the empire states building in the war but it was a 10 ton aircraft that had significantly reduced it’s speed to avoid two other skyscrapers. It caused a lot of damage but didn’t collapse the building.
However, a 767 aeroplane is not 10 ton or even the 50 to 80 tonnes that i estimated before, it is 200 tonnes. If you were to add 200 tonnes to the top of a skyscraper it would most likely not be able to take such a heavy additional load.
“But that only accounts for the area of the impact, not the whole building”
What if the area of impact extends far into the building? The instability of a large area of structure being taken out by the force of a high speed impact (it didn’t swerve to miss another building) it would be entirely possible for the building to collapse.
9/11 was unique as nobody had ever tried intentionally to fly a huge plane into a building before. So you are not going to get much evidence of such instances.
Also the reason no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire ever is that fire fighters have always put out the fire before the structural integrity has been destroyed enough to collapse the building but in theory it is perfectly plausable for a fire to destroy a building. Steel and concrete are not impervious to fire that is why they are fire protected and even that can only do so for a certain length of time.
If I can’t give you example because there aren’t any that is not a bad thing. All I can tell you is what is technically possible based my knowledge of design and structure. From that I can see that it is possible for a plane that size and weight to take out one of the twin towers.
Glen.
In my previous post I forgot to include the weight of the B25 that hit the Empire state building.
The weight of a B25 Mitchell Bomber is about 15 tonnes and it is a lot slower than a jet liner.
“is this a slippery slope…””Probably.”
Tim G.’s right too, re. deserving applause for trying to find a good way through, I’m sorry if I’m sounding unduly negative, the (comparative) peace is indeed very welcome. I think my main point is to be wary of solutions that involve you having to shoulder the load of other peoples’ pisstaking. On the other hand, the only real long-term solution (people learn to spot troublemaking and deal with it) isn’t quick enough … I don’t have any solutions to sell, i just hate to see it so defenceless. If I can help, let me know.
Oh, and Tim G – ‘Irate Noodle’ is nice. I’m fluent in Shite, myself.
Silly me, I forgot Roswell.
“Recently i saw the film Avatar…”
Have you been listening to Mahathir?
Craig, this post is an excercise in futility. Give your readership a place to discuss something you feel isn’t relevant in other threads? (with the threat of post deletion if this topic is brought up anywhere else?)
Who needs to discuss 9/11? – the time for discussion is over. You either believe 19 Arab hijackers did it, or you believe it was a covert operation by various ‘security’ services working together…
Believe what you will, I’ve made up my mind. I can’t be arsed trying to convince others to see the world through my eyes. In fact, I wouldn’t blame them for not trying. It’s a fucked up. Everything Craig writes confirms this (present post excepted)
Frazier,
“Yes there were puffs of air exiting sides of the building as it collapses. This is air compression caused by the buildings internal collapse and air bieng forced out of it through lift shafts,stairwells etcIf explosives were used, any demolition expert would have spotted it. Mind you, I keep an open mind on the subject.”
Angrysoba and I have had some extended exchanges on this subject in the past, but haven’t managed to agree yet. I will say this: if anyone can convince me that the “squib” explosions at the WTC were actually caused by air compression, I would happily drop all my other objections to the idea that 9/11 was an outside job and go back to attacking Monsanto.
The reasons why I haven’t been able to accept the air compression hypothesis at WTC 1 & 2 is that squibs are observed emerging 10 or 15 stories below the collapse front. Air is notorious for eqilibriating (quickly reaching the same pressure throughout a single enclosed space), and to increase its pressure enough to break windows would require a lot of compression. (You can’t usually smash a window just by slamming the door of a room.) The WTC buildings were essentially partition free, with each floor forming a single air space and the elevator shafts, stairwells and air conditioning shafts providing conduits for air to move downwards from the collapse zone, but with not nearly enough cross-sectional area to allow enough air in to raise the pressure high enough and fast enough to smash windows 10 or 15 floors below the collapse front.
Further, as the building was collapsing, the walls and windows of the collapsing section were being destroyed, which provided a much larger cross-sectional area for the air of a collaping floor to escape straight out into the sky above Manhatten. Also, the outside pressure would have been lower than the pressure in the building below the collapse front, so I don’t see how sufficient air compression to smash windows 15 stories down could have occured. Imagine compressing a syringe that doesn’t have a good seal around the plunger: the air will not compresss very much if it has plenty of opportunity to leak out of the sides. You can try this with a syringe full of water.To get it to come out of the needle, you need to have the rest of the syringe well sealed.
And even if the pressure inside the lower part of the building could be made to rise ?” what’s the word? ?” “explosively”, it would be likely to blow out a whole floor of windows simultaneously – not just blowing one window and releasing a jet of gas and debris that has so much kinetic energy that it would, if it was the result of air compression on a given floor, have blown out most or all of the windows.
Conversely, if we assume a modest squib placed close to a window, there is no problem visualizing why only one window popped. That’s a much more plausible model, all other things being equal.
And finally, I saw a video a couple of weeks ago that seems to show a “squib” going off at one of the corners of the North Tower, where there was no window.
That’s why I’m unable to accept the no-explosives theory at present. I am quite willing to be convinced, and as you and your colleagues know a thing or two about bangs and blasts, you might be just the people to work out this puzzle so the rest of us can understand it.
But Angrysoba’s method, which consisted of calling Richard Gage a Chacerian fraud, David Ray Griffin a Cleudo player, and Steve Jones a Mormon, followed by some of his favorite YouTube videos, didn’t do it for me. Wickedly entertaining though it was, It didn’t address the central issue for me of how could a single window, 15 floors below the blast wave, pop out with explosive force, while all the other windows on the same floor and the floors above and below it remained unaffected? Could a large, general, non-specific air blast do that? I think it more likely that a small, powerful, localized explosion was the cause.
Soba,
“I believe 2+2=4. Do you agree?”
That depends on how you define “believe”, “agree”, “+” and “=”.
It also depends in what base you are adding up in and what values you are attributing to the numerals in question.
So there’s plenty of scope for differences of opinion.
Chris,
I mentioned that the buildings were designed to withstand the weight of a 707 (similar take-off weight to a 767) by a ‘net’ concept and loading force calculations. As a design engineer (in a different field) one always (with good design) finds a failure constant and then applies an over-load factor or safety margin. Now whether the design included a full fuel load is under debate. I have a full set of blueprints for the one of the towers and the loading constants and I will report back on the strength of the building here if desired. I am sure this exercise has been done before by professionals and is available somewhere on the www?
to Angrysoba, just seems odd to me that normal procedures to deal with planes in USA civil airspace that go off course or fail to respond to radio calls weren’t followed in the same way as they were before the 11th Sept 2001 and were allowed to go where they wanted without interception. Just seems odd… but so does three buildings falling down on the same day in what appears to be a controlled demolition. Just odd that’s all…
– and of course to the lay-man the buildings stood for about an hour before falling – so good design saved many lives.
I am not convinced by the temperature curves involved that the steel melted or even sagged because the fuel burned off very quickly and the black smoke gave some indication of temperature.
“to Angrysoba, just seems odd to me that normal procedures to deal with planes in USA civil airspace that go off course or fail to respond to radio calls weren’t followed in the same way as they were before the 11th Sept 2001 and were allowed to go where they wanted without interception.”
Well, it needs to be established what normal procedures were for dealing with four hijackings at about the same time in which the hijackers switched off the transponders and flew the planes themselves.
I don’t believe there were normal procedures for that situation.
“but so does three buildings falling down on the same day in what appears to be a controlled demolition”
Except they don’t appear to be controlled demolitions because we didn’t hear any detonations of explosives. Or see any flashes of explosives. Nor has any controlled demolition I have ever seen look like the Twin Towers collapses.
“That depends on how you define “believe”, “agree”, “+” and “=”.
It also depends in what base you are adding up in and what values you are attributing to the numerals in question.
So there’s plenty of scope for differences of opinion.”
I agree with you.
“I know that a bomber crashed into the empire states building in the war but it was a 10 ton aircraft that had significantly reduced it’s speed to avoid two other skyscrapers”
There again, the Empire State is a small and weaker building than WTC.
“9/11 was unique as nobody had ever tried intentionally to fly a huge plane into a building before”
Does it matter whether the impact is intentional or accidental?
“Also the reason no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire ever is that fire fighters have always put out the fire before the structural integrity has been destroyed”
Not true. Sometimes they are left to burn themselves out because they are too dangerous. A good example is the tower block in Madrid in 2005, which burned uncontrollably for 24 hours. The whole building was like a huge torch. But it didn’t collapse. Only the top 6 storeys gave way.
“Steel and concrete are not impervious to fire that is why they are fire protected and even that can only do so for a certain length of time”.
The Madrid tower burned for over 24 hours without collapsing. WTC2 collapsed less than one hour after impact (WTC1 about 90 mins). Any views on that?
“If I can’t give you example because there aren’t any that is not a bad thing”
But it would help your case enormously.
To Mr Angry, you must be making a mint today from your sponsors, is Criag getting a kick-back from you for putting this post up?
“To Mr Angry, you must be making a mint today from your sponsors, is Criag getting a kick-back from you for putting this post up?”
If only. Who’s paying you by the way?
“The Madrid tower burned for over 24 hours without collapsing. WTC2 collapsed less than one hour after impact (WTC1 about 90 mins). Any views on that?”
Yes, was the Madrid Tower fireproofed and did a 767 fly into it at 500 mph?
Thankyou.
The Inquiries Act 2005
More on this insidiuos legislation, passed into law 1 month before the 7/7 attrocities.
More here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yk2fmhv
The same legislation will be used to undertake the inquests (NONE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED YET) into the 56 deaths of July 7th 2005.
The Inquiries Act 2005 will allow secret inquests under goverment selected (privvy councillor) high court judges & inquests without family members or/or juries present.
MJ,
I have shown this video of a steel-framed building collapsing due to fire before. The fire doesn’t look like its blazing too much but the burning section does collapse and crush down to the floor as far as I can make out.
It also comes with “squibs”!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903
No one was harmed in the making of this video.
Carlyle,
“My response. Most of the aircraft would have penetrated the Pentagon and the aircraft debris would be intermixed with the building debris. Most aircraft that hit the ground do not intersect buildings, therefore the aircraft does not get broken into small chunks, an aircraft hitting a building is a different matter.”
Then why have we not recovered most of the structure of United Airlines Flight 93 that allegedly crashed on soft ground in Shanksville, Penn on 9/11? We got plenty of bits of Pan Am fight 103, which blew up over Lockerbiem Scotland and came down over a wide area. We got almost the entire skeleton of TWA flight 800, which went into the Atlantic and had to be picked up by divers in small pieces dotting several square miles of sea bed. Where’s the bits and pieces of UA Flight 93? Enquiring minds want to know. Defenders of the official theory, put up or shut up.
No, really. If you don’t produce at least this much of the Flight 93 airplane….
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060708/060708_TWA10th_hmed_7p.hlarge.jpg
… and you still want to go on believing the official story, then I’m afraid it’s T-shirt time. We’re going to have to start calling you what you are, 9-11 Reality Deniers.
@Tim An interesting point and I think I have seen the same ‘squib’ video myself. It is my opinion that as the floors collapsed, the entire building was twisting and shuddering. What you may have thought was an explosion was probably the reinforced concrete fracturing under tremendous force and blowing out at the structural points under force. I looked again at the video and no way is that some type of controlled detonation. You can see the same type of thing happen when large buildings are demolished, such as that casino they blew up in Vegas some years ago. It is a pretty common phenomenon if you collapse a structure floor by floor. With all the debris flying around as well it is easy to misinterpretate. Again I do though keep an open mind.
The squib theory is great, but the ‘explosion’ is far too small to do any significant damage to the structure. To make a building collapse like the WTC did with explosives, you would have to use enough, that the effects would be clearly visible to anyone watching,eg windows blown out etc. If I were to do it, I would place charges at the structural strongpoints. For a building that size I would place 2kg at each point, and believe me that makes a significant blast and you would see it a mile away.
“Yes, was the Madrid Tower fireproofed and did a 767 fly into it at 500 mph?”
According to your beloved NIST report it was the heat of the fires that did it. Kerosene heating huge steel sections so they give way, within an hour. I was hoping you were going to tell me about the conductive qualities of steel.
Cui Bono.
“Cui Bono” does not always tell you who to suspect for a particular crime because it is not who actually benefits but who thinks perhaps wrongly that they might benefit or who has an agenda that they think perhaps incorrectly will be advanced by the action.
When events like 9/11 occur we try to get from the visible facts to the underlying facts. For any set of visible facts one can postulate multiple sets of underlying facts that could be the cause.
In the case of the 9/11 airlinerings they advanced the agendas of both Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush and the neo-cons. There are several possible sets of underlying facts which could explain it:-
1/ People working for Osama Bin Laden did it on their own with no collusion by the US government.
2/ People working for Osama Bin Laden did it but elements of the US government had spies in Bin Laden’s organization and knew about it but did nothing to stop it;
3/ A US mole in Osama’s organization suggested the idea to Osama.
4/ George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden got together and agreed that they both wanted war in the middle east and George suggested to Osama that if he could arrange for his guys to hijack airliners and fly them into some tall buildings that would give George a pretext to start their war.
In my opinion the probabilities of scenario 4 is low but it is still above zero. The first three scenarios have higher probabilities.
The Madrid Tower was of reinforced concrete construction – the WTC towers were primarily steel construction. WTC 1&2 were designed for the forces resulting from aircraft collision. The WTC 1&2 towers were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft of the time, a Boeing 707.
NIST struggled to
Yes, I think Richard Gage is a Chaucerian fraud. He’s very personable and all that. Ironically he’s also good at fleecing those who like to call others “sheeple” but I’m sure those thousands of dollars raised on FOIAs won’t be wasted.
David Ray Griffin isn’t just any old Cluedo player but one who declares at the beginnig of the game that it was Colonel Mustard, in the basement with the thermite and no matter what transpires throughout the game he will remain convinced and can’t be swayed whatever evidence to the contrary exists. Instead he’ll muse on the significance of the coffee stains left from a previous game or the fact that Mrs White bears a striking resemblance to Dick Cheney.
As for Steven Jones, I don’t believe his Mormonism is an issue. After all the good folks at the structural engineering department and the physics department of Brigham Young University find Jones to be just a little too attracted to outrageous ideas which could just make or break him. I feel a bit sorry for him and think he’s not a mean-spirited person.
Tim Groves.
Well I accept the designation of 9/11 reality denier in your estimation.
However I make up for it by believing that the murders of JFK, RFK and Martin Luther King were not done by lone nutters but by powerful interests in the US possibly including agencies of the US government. I also believe global warming really is happening and that there really is a UFO phenomenon though it is too early to jump to the conclusion that people are seeing spaceships from other planets. Such an explanation may not be weird enough.
To begin with the FBI have admitted that they have no evidence linking Osama to 9/11.
In 1989 a report stated that due to galvanic corrosion WTC 1+2 needed to be demolished. Also the towers were full of asbestos. The cost of demolition was a prohibitive $5 billion. After fellow tribal members went to work and forced the NYPA to privatize the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein picked up the lease for $146 million annual rent. He put down a $15 million deposit, slapped terrorist insurance on the complex and picked up $3.5 billion in insurance.
Flight 11. Mohammed Atta catches a connecting flight from Portland to Boston where he later hijacks Flight 11. Must be the first hijacker in history to catch a connecting flight to the one he intends to hijack..
Flight 175. A news reporter, its on youtube, describes 175 has having no windows and looking like a cargo plane.
Flight 93. On board 93 was an American football team, they be big bad guys. And yet they are cowed into submission by a couple of five foot nothing Arabs wielding box cutters. Sure. At the crash site in Shanksville when asked by reporters where all the plane wreckage was, the local Sheriff replied that the plane crashed vertically into the ground and was buried below the 15 by 25 foot crater. OK. Apparently 95% of the wreckage was recovered and is in storage. But nobody is saying where.
Flight 77. The data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77 shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.
Also there are witnesses to an explosion in the Pentagon. While 77 is said to have crashed into the Pentagon at 0836, many clocks in the building stopped at 0832. The department that suffered the most damage was the Army Accounting dept. It was this department which was investigating the disappearance of $2.5 trillion from Pentagon accounts when the comptroller of accounts was a tribal member by the name of Rabbi Dov Zakheim. Thereafter the investigation ceased.
And where is the footage from the 86 cameras around the Pentagon.
WTC7. When the clips of the collapse of WTC7 started to appear on youtube I contacted two of the few men in the UK licensed to use explosives in demolition. After they viewed these clips they confided to me that “they would have been proud of that one”.
The company in charge of security at Newark and Boston on 9/11 was the same company that ran security at Orly where shoebomber Richard Reid boarded his flight. It is the same company that runs security at Schipol where the infamous croch bomber boarded his flight. And it is the same company that ran security for London transport on 7/7. The companies name is ICTS, and it is Israeli.
If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck and if it walks like a duck, it aint no chicken.
Mr. Murray poses the question as to how thousands would remain silent if there was a conspiracy other than that involving dreaded Muslim terrorists. The current hoax regarding man made climate change is a good example of how thousands are involved in propagating a lie.
Millions of Germans were killed or left to die after WW2. How many people have heard of that.
For over 60 years the Palestinian has been portrayed as the terrorist and the Jew the victim. How many thousands have been in involved in prolonging that lie.
When a foreign government controls many of the world’s governments, the UK has been occupied territory since Oliver Cromwell became the paid servant of a Dutch Jewish banker by the name of Menassah ben Israel, and controls most of the world’s media then the promoting of a lie is really no problem. BTW, Churchill’s mother was Jewish.
I’m surprised that Mr. Murray has to even ask the question.
“According to your beloved NIST report it was the heat of the fires that did it. Kerosene heating huge steel sections so they give way, within an hour. I was hoping you were going to tell me about the conductive qualities of steel.”
I’m not in love with NIST, but I do believe they mentioned that the fireproofing was knocked off by the impacts, which themselves weakened the structure.
I showed you video before of the steel apparently buckling and giving way. In the off-chance you watch it this time I’ll repost it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rbfLLp7rBI&feature=player_embedded
Neil Turner, you have just produced a bone fide example of what I believe is known as a Gish Gallop.
Tim Groves.
When the cause of an air crash is unknown, great care is taken to recover as much as possible of the debris to determine the cause. In the case of the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 the cause is already known, the people at the controls flew them into buildings. With the one that crashed in Pennsylvania the only question is whether the hijacker deliberately crashed it before the rebellious passengers and crew broke into the cockpit or whether he was simply distracted or whether the passengers managed to overpower the last high-jacker in the cockpit and the crash occurred as or after they were doing that?
Angry,
How does this failed demolition in Hackney fit in with your theories?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&feature=fvsr
And this one in Cankiri?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7z-FQUrfhc&NR=1
Or this epic fail in Goodnessknows where?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&feature=related
What do these three all have in common that sets them apart from the WTC collapses? (Apart from the fact that we know these were demilitions and failed ones at that.)
(Sorry, I don’t know how to put in links on this site.)