Popular Mechanics 911 debunk workings of a Bush Cabal cover-up!

HowardRoark. You are one of the most ignorant people I have seen posting on the net about 911. You don't have a clue buddy. Go watch a video. Even the owner (Larry Silverstein) of the world trade center complex said that they pulled building 7 on PBS. Go do some research before you beleive a 25 yr old punk who's just covering for his cousin and doesn't have a clue.

it was weakened. No steel constructed modern building has ever fallen do to fire. NEVER! Nor has one fell from being hit by an airplane. 2 in one day, give me a break. The smoke from the fire was black which means the fire was at low temperature. Didn’t you see the people standing outside the holes of the trade center; the fire wasn’t hot enough to burn them.

Now how about the Pentagon. Has anyone seen the pictures from the Pentagon? The fire wasn’t hot enough to burn paper objects like books, however it was hot enough to melt industrial steel in New York. Fire must be hotter in New York.

HowardRoark, first of all the feds official story doesn’t say steel was melted, instead it was weakened. No steel constructed modern building has ever fallen do to fire. NEVER! Nor has one fell from being hit by an airplane. 2 in one day, give me a break. The smoke from the fire was black which means the fire was at low temperature. Didn’t you see the people standing outside the holes of the trade center; the fire wasn’t hot enough to burn them.

Now how about the Pentagon. Has anyone seen the pictures from the Pentagon? The fire wasn’t hot enough to burn paper objects like books, however it was hot enough to melt industrial steel in New York. Fire must be hotter in New York.

Originally posted by stevens17379
HowardRoark. You are one of the most ignorant people I have seen posting on the net about 911. You don't have a clue buddy.

Coming from you, that really hurts. . . . NOT.

Go watch a video. Even the owner (Larry Silverstein) of the world trade center complex said that they pulled building 7 on PBS.

I guess you missed the thread on ATS on this very subject. Since Larry used the term “pull” in relating a conversation with the fire chief, a bunch of ATSer’s went over to a fireman’s forum and asked what does the term “pull” means to a fire fighter.

Guess what, It sure as hell doesn’t mean the intentional demolition of a building. When firefighters say they are going to “pull” in relation to fighting a fire in a building, they mean that they are going to pull out and let the fire burn. This is exactly what they did. Especially since they had evidence of structural damage to WT7 long before it collapsed.

Go do some research before you beleive a 25 yr old punk who's just covering for his cousin and doesn't have a clue.

You act like he was the only one involved with the piece. As I recall there where a number of others listed in the byline.

Furthermore, you show a shocking lack of understanding about how modern business works. Do you honestly think that PM would publish an article that wasn’t thoroughly vetted in all aspects? Can you even imagine the potential business liability if it turned out that they published a deliberate lie?

You probably think that Jeff Rense is the paradigm of journalistic ethics and that all other publishers has similar standards.




[edit on 10-3-2005 by HowardRoark]

HowardRoark, first of all the feds official story doesn’t say steel was melted, instead it was weakened.

Exactly. It was weakened by the heat. Steel loses strength long befor

in addition, the Structure was weakened also. that is what happens when you slam an airplane into a building. It weakens it. You can also weaken a building by impacting huge pieces of another building into is like WTC 5 and WTC 7.

Keep in mind that there are two different concepts here (I know that this is confusing to you, but pleas try to stay with me)

There is the strength of the steel that is a property of the material. In other words the strength that is inherent in the steel itself. Now it might surprise you, but in reality, steel is not all that strong. It is much more resistant to tension forces t han to compression forces. It is extremely flexible and will bend like a wet pasta noodle if given half a chance.

Then there is the strength that a structure has. This is inherent in the design of the structure and the shape of the materials used. Thus you can take a relatively flexible material like steel and build a 110 story building with it.

On 911, both types of strength were compromised. The impacts damaged the structure, and the fire weakened the material.

No steel constructed modern building has ever fallen do to fire. NEVER! Nor has one fell from being hit by an airplane. 2 in one day, give me a break.

This comment is so stupid, that I might just use it as a new sig line.

The smoke from the fire was black which means the fire was at low temperature.

Have you ever seen pictures of the oil fires in Kuwait? The smoke from those was black also, yet the fires were often hot enough to melt the equipment next to the well heads.

Didn’t you see the people standing outside the holes of the trade center; the fire wasn’t hot enough to burn them.

Do you have any idea just how huge the tower floors were? Each floor covered 42,849 square feet. You could have had a blast furnace in the core area.

Now how about the Pentagon. Has anyone seen the pictures from the Pentagon? The fire wasn’t hot enough to burn paper objects like books, however it was hot enough to melt industrial steel in New York. Fire must be hotter in New York.

Most of the fuel burned on the outside of the building at the pentagon. Furthermore, there were firefighters at the pentagon within minutes fighting the fire. (you forgot about that fact, huh? )


[edit on 10-3-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
antipigopolist - do you have a link to this?

It's from his interview on Coast-to-Coast (membership required to listen). Ben Chertoff says he "does not know if there is a relation" and that he "didn't even know who Michael Chertoff was until the New York Times article". I didn't know who he was either until some sensationalist stirred up the pot.

Why jump in this pit, Howard? You can lead a horse to water but....

No win situation. People believe what they want to believe even in the face of reason. Most here site conspiracy based on conspiracy website author's evidence or a reporter's spin of a story. I've yet to see anyone from the conspiracy side site reputable metallurgists or structural engineers qualified and knowlegable about skyscraper design stating that what happened to the towers was anything other than a direct result of 2 planes crashing into them.

How long must we wait for anyone to come forward from a reputable source with conspiratorial evidence to the contrary?

You know why they can't find any engineers to suport their theories, Because all the engineers are in on the conspiracy.

In fact, the 911 conspiracy theorists are just miffed, because they are the only ones who weren't in on it from the begining.

I was lucky enough to know a friend of a friend of a norad operative who knew a friend at the aircontrollers office who knew Ms. Rice who knew the tower's demo experts who was a friend of one of the 2 F-16 pilots on stand down over the atlantic who's girlfriend's cousin knew Michael Chertoff who had a distant cousin who wrote an article read by this friend of mine...

and he gave me 2 tickets to "The 9/11 Conspiracy". You can have my other ticket. The NSA is a lonely place...all my friends are dead or on the moon base.

Summary of facts.

1. Popular Mechanics published an article with the purpose to discredit 16 alternative 'theories' of what happened on 9/11/2001, on technical grounds.

2. The person cited as the senior researcher in the article is a cousin of the director of the Department of Homeland Security.

3. There are many other alternative theories not addressed by the article.

4. No statements have been made to resolve the unanswered questions presented in those 'theories' through any official enquiry.


That's how I see the contribution of Popular Mechanics and the Chertoff connection. People can choose to connect dots and go further, or live in blissful ignorance.

Moonbase out.

MA, all your "alternative theories" just remind me of Carl Sagan's infamous dragon

I prefer to stay grounded in reality as opposed to "Connecting the dots of paranoid fantasy."

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Summary of facts.

2. The person cited as the senior researcher in the article is a cousin of the director of the Department of Homeland Security.

This is a claim...not a proven fact unless Rense or Jones are your mainline to truth. The man himself says he does not know Michael Chertoff and, as far as he knows, is not a direct relation. The burden of proof lies with those that claim otherwise so please provide evidence. I've given a link to the contrary and have heard the man himself state he does not know Michael Chertoff....all I see from the naysyers is conjecture. How long must we wait for the evidence of fact everyone here claims! So far...just a bunch of parrots for Rense and Jones.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by antipigopolist]

Ahhhhhh!

We are back on track with Chertoff vs Chertoff.

It may well be so, that the Chertoffs are not as tight as, say, the Bushes with the bin Ladens.

It will be a true test of the topical theme of "the ATS knowledge base" to see whether something can be established and grounded in fact, then referenced as a fact from this point on, in the playground called ATS.

Deny Ignorance does not equal Obfuscation Central.



[edit on 10-3-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

Yawn...think what you like...I care not. I was just looking for someone to point out some facts to back up their conjecture with regard to expert research to support a conspiracy. None so far...self righteous rhetoric, yes....but no links to support the rhetoric beyond firestarters like Rense and Jones.
I would expect some of these supposed writer/fighters in here to display more than cute little quips. A poor substitute for convincing intelligent evidence.

You see, what we have to remember is that if anyone has any contact with someone we blindly hate, they must be lying. The guy who does Little Green Footballs, who busted Rather for the forged documents, actually saw Bush once. As a result, we know the whole thing was a lie, Rather had real documents, and that evil, evil, evil Bush got him to say what the Bush wanted LGF to say because they had met once, or rather LGF had seen Bush.

...On that note, I've met Bill Clinton...He was innocent?

Question:

Why didn't the PM article address the remote controlled planes myth?
Why didn't they address the aliens myth?

This article is garbage. I am a science person, so I know what's going on here...

Some say that science proves the theories wrong? BULL!! How can science prove it wrong when all the steel was sold as scrap to China? Surely, a scientific examination of the steel would have cleared up the melting point questions.

Oh well, be stupid and buy the crap. Even when some of the hijackers are found ALIVE, even when a Lone Gunman episode has a 9/11 storyline, even when Alex Jones tells people to call the White House and tell them not to pull it off TWO MONTHS before 9/11, even when Bin Laden is a CIA asset, even when govt officials are warned not to go to NYC, even when they intercept ONE guy for suspicious flight school training while they miss the other hijackers TRAINED HERE, even when fighter jets are scrambled onto 68 off course planes the year before 9/11, you still won't believe it.

Be idiots, whatever makes you feel better...