TIME: Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
how does that fit in to your amazingly analogus example with the pencils and pancakes?

It doesn't. It means that the pencils would have to be snapped/severed at the upper third in order to do this. Same as the columns. When you think about it. Steel in tension will elongate to a certain degree but not to the extent it would take for the angle seen at the cap of tower 2.

Also, Valhall has brought up a very interesting point in the past. The real evidence shows that the outer truss connections were sheared off, while the inner connections were bent. This is an indication of the core failing first and pulling the floors with it. How does this fit into the truss failure/pancake theory? Answer...it doesn't. Again, the official theory doesn't fit with the evidence.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by esdad71
Watch the videos in the supplied links, and I think you will see how simple it all really is. Trust me, it is better than Loose Change.

I did, it does not explain:

1. The rotational inerta of the WTC 2 block and subsequent disintegration.
2. How the collapse of WTC 2 would continue without the PE/KE of this block.
3. How the collapse could have been symmetrical at WTC 2 given the rotation and subsequent evaporation of the block.
4. How a triple (at least) redundant building collapses symmetrically driven only by gravity due to localized column failures.

As an aside... do not throw a veiled insult at me with the Loose Change comment. When did I reference "Loose Change"?

If all you bring to the table is FEMA and NOVA (from your links) you are just a parrot... why bother?

Why not answer my questions regarding rotational inertia, simultaneous column failure and symmetry?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

I give my opinion, you want proof.
I give proof, I am a parrot.

Slaps, you give no room. I like your use of rotationial inertia though. Cool word.



1. rotational inertia, would that mean as it pulled closer it moved faster, right? falling upon itself would do that, correct, rather than falling away? Is that what you are looking for, the moment it began. Not sure with the way you asked the question.
2. The weight of more than 20 floors is plenty of energy. It was not simultaneous failure, but failure over time.

3. it was far from symetrical, and that question shows you paid no attention to the videos. oh well.

Also, you took offense at the loose change comment, this is a forum for everybody, not jsut you Captain Ego, k?

Answer me one question, explain to me how you believe the towers fell? please cite everything for me)

Originally posted by esdad71
I give my opinion, you want proof.
I give proof, I am a parrot.

NOVA's opinion is not PROOF. Use dictionary.com... look up PROOF.

Originally posted by esdad71
Slaps, you give no room. I like your use of rotationial inertia though. Cool word.

Since you do not understand a simple high school physics concept... rotational inertia there is no point in me answering the rest of this drivel. If I start referenceing vectors, PE, KE, moments, etc. it will all be wasted keystrokes as I do not think you understand these very basic concepts.

Originally posted by Sauron
Here are some news video clips I have saved it's very short, CNN reporter say's firemen believe devices planted in the building.
911-WTC-Reporter-Secondary-Explosions-CNN-News

And one from ABC
ABC-Demolition-Infrastructure

This one is of a survivor who says there was a big boom in the lobby
911 WTC Big Explosion


[edit on 6/9/2006 by Sauron]

Your avatar scares me dude.. but I just voted you wats because everyone should watch your 3 little movies here.

Excellent stuff and keep it coming!

I especially like the middle one of Jennings telling us how to do a controlled demo while we watch the tower just about to come down.

Isn't Jennings a Bilderberger among other things?

He must have known what was going on and was narrating the whole show.

Who do you beleive than Slaps? Who? If you do not believe anything from NIST, FEMA, Silverstien, ACSE, 9/11 commission or any other supporter of the official theory, who is it you believe in?


You never quote any facts or answer questions, you jsut continue to ask them. That is an easy way to never have to work too hard, but gets a little tiring for us answering your questions.

Sticks and stones may break your bones, but acronyms are easy. I made the best sense out of your questions that I knew how.


Now, I believe the video evidence on the NOVA sight which directly takes from NIST does a good job of explaining the collaspe, in layamns terms even. Does everyone in this thread truly think that NONE of it fits or makes sense? None of it, becasuse if that is true, there is no use in using keystrokes.....

Originally posted by esdad71
Who do you beleive than Slaps? Who? If you do not believe anything from NIST, FEMA, Silverstien, ACSE, 9/11 commission or any other supporter of the official theory, who is it you believe in?

If I may based upon my studies of mind control and brain washing techniques long ago perfected and world widely used..

Truth is used to sell lies. Thus, the named groups have to give a degree of truth with the lies but the issue at hand is how much of each and what are the relevant facts.

Originally posted by esdad71
Does everyone in this thread truly think that NONE of it fits or makes sense? None of it, becasuse if that is true, there is no use in using keystrokes.....

That is not true. I believe in SOME of it. I believe once initiation of the tower's collapse happened...it was as NIST says...inevitable for global collapse. It's the initiation that gets me. Especially as BSBray keeps saying (which no one wants to listen to BTW) there wasn't enough buckling to initiate collapse IMO. There...see we are essentially on the same page...I'm a little but more on the CT side than you...but both of us are questioning the official story...which (in their minds) makes us crazy CTers.

We're all conspiracy Theorists.

The Official story is a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy perputrated by terrorists.

The Critical Thinkers side believe it is a conspiracy perputrated by domestic powers.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by esdad71
Who do you beleive than Slaps? Who? If you do not believe anything from NIST, FEMA, Silverstien, ACSE, 9/11 commission or any other supporter of the official theory, who is it you believe in?

Truth is used to sell lies. Thus, the named groups have to give a degree of truth with the lies but the issue at hand is how much of each and what are the relevant facts.

I think alot of people who support the official story from the government believe it simply because they where told it. Who is going to question guys who look professional and are telling you how it fell and why it fell and who did it. They say it is so, the media says it is so, so you believe it is so.

Now that is because no one seems to think the government can control the media. "Oh but we have a constitution and they have to abide by it and press must remain free" right, like they actually give a rats @!$ about the constitution when it prevents them from furthering control.

When people except that the government is even capable of propaganda and lies on a massive scale, only then will people begin to question more and more. This TIME magazine, the recent video releases of OBL, Iran saying America did the attacks with Israel, all these things coming out right before the elections to put down the growing truth movement should be evidence enough.. government has at the very least SOME control over media.

If you control the media, you control the means of information and with that the facts can be covered up.

Once I found the reference to the 70's fire and the buckling, I was convinced 100%. Before then I researched if it was shoddy workmanship or even poor code enforcement, which is very interesting how they avoided many things being an out of state entity.

Maybe it is just the way the human mind works, everyone looks at things differently, some more analytical and some jsut accept what they are told, choose a side and run with it.

Remember how no one thought Bin Laden was tied to these guys, well, we have all seen the video.

I am waiting, for the home movie to be found or released that shows alot more. I watched a special called "Inside the towers" recently and it was pretty interesting.

Originally posted by esdad71
Once I found the reference to the 70's fire and the buckling, I was convinced 100%.

I thought it was kind of funny how no news articles from the 1970's mentioned any structural damage, but only damage to cables and things like that, and yet a government report from 2002 did.

Also funny how we have no reports of the massive work done to the North Tower, that would undoubtedly be required if trusses were actually damaged. They would need to be replaced.

But, by design, wouldn't they have been able to replace the truss based on your belief that truss damage would not allow the towers to fall in the first place?


As you know, there are numerous trusses, so if 1 or 2 needed to be replaced or repaired, it would be no big deal according to your theory that a truss or 2 would not allow collapse.

www.greatgridlock.net...

Here is another reference to the sagging...

www.mipt.org...

PAge 81 and 83 Talks alot about fireproofing also....Seems that anything that was not fireproofed was damaged.

What I'm saying is that they would have had to have gone in, broken up the floors, removed the damaged trusses, bring in new trusses to replace them, and lay more concrete back over it. Any reports of this ever happening?

It WOULD be a big deal to stop all work, tear up floors and walls to rip trusses out of the floors replace them with new ones, weld them together, patch back up the floor, repaint and carpet it, and move the businesses back in.

lotta work, actually.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Now that is because no one seems to think the government can control the media. "Oh but we have a constitution and they have to abide by it and press must remain free" right, like they actually give a rats @!$ about the constitution when it prevents them from furthering control.

Freedom of speach? Since Nixon, that's been out the window. Remember deepthroat? He couldn't come out until LAST YEAR.....some 30 years later!!! Freedom of press has been gone a long time my friend. Why would it take deepthroat over 30 years to come out? Because of control.....he was afraid of this government....which is against the foundation of this country to start with.

If you control the media, you control the means of information and with that the facts can be covered up.

For an example of this, look at Hitler's Germany. No Joe Regular citizen knew about the holocaust....if they did, don't you think they would have done something about it? But, I guess in the end....fear wins out.....glad I'm NOT afraid!!!!!!!

Originally posted by esdad71
Once I found the reference to the 70's fire and the buckling, I was convinced 100%.

I have asked you three times now to supply FACTS to back up this statement and you haven't been able to. I have to ask....why do you believe this when even yourself can't back it up?

Before then I researched if it was shoddy workmanship or even poor code enforcement, which is very interesting how they avoided many things being an out of state entity.

First, shoddy workmanship or poor code enforcement? Do you really think such a major project wouldn't have quality control and quality assurance? For someone who claims to have SE background...it sure doesn't sound like it....sorry don't mean to call you out on that but.... Do you mean out of state entity as in the Port Authority? The New York and New Jersey Port Autority is NOT out of state. It's like here in DC....Virginia, Maryland and DC work together...it's definately NOT an out of state entity.

Maybe it is just the way the human mind works, everyone looks at things differently, some more analytical and some jsut accept what they are told, choose a side and run with it.

I hope to be one who doesn't do this. Again...you are grouping people together that yourself has even confided in us that you are a part of. It's OK....you can deal with being labeled a CTer....

Remember how no one thought Bin Laden was tied to these guys, well, we have all seen the video.

What video? The fat Binladen? If Binladen was involved...why does the FBI not think so? Why did the CIA just recently disban the Binladen unit? Why has Bush said that Binladen is not important anymore? I know you won't believe me ...but look it up...it's all true.

I am waiting, for the home movie to be found or released that shows alot more. I watched a special called "Inside the towers" recently and it was pretty interesting.

Of course it was...depending upon your stance. Take care esdad....I'm glad you continue to debate, but personally, IMO your stance and what you believe may be coming to a crash sometime soon. On ther other hand...maybe My stance and my views might be coming to a crash soon. That's what is IMO the difference between the two of us. If I'm wrong in something I say...I will concede....from what I've seen from you...you won't. Like I've said before...a closed mind is the worst thing.

Originally posted by esdad71

www.greatgridlock.net...

Here is another reference to the sagging...

www.mipt.org...

PAge 81 and 83 Talks alot about fireproofing also....Seems that anything that was not fireproofed was damaged.

Here you go again...when we ask for anything as of proof...you link to NIST...well done esdad...you got my vote for WATS...just kidding.

Originally posted by Griff
No Joe Regular citizen knew about the holocaust....if they did, don't you think they would have done something about it?

Yeah, who was it, Patton? that went to neighboring villages and actually forced German citizens out to see what they had allowed their government to do, and forced those citizens to help remove the bodies of all the dead.

When historians say history repeats itself, I doubt even half of historians realize how significant those words are. The same human fallabilities crop up time after time and everyone thinks they're different each time, that they're new and special and that nothing so atrocious will ever occur in their time. Everybody thinks their lifespan and their lifespan alone is "normal", uneventful, and yet human atrocities only get more and more massive as we go along.

Originally posted by bsbray11
What I'm saying is that they would have had to have gone in, broken up the floors, removed the damaged trusses, bring in new trusses to replace them, and lay more concrete back over it. Any reports of this ever happening?

Not to mention any record of permits required to do this work? Funny how I can't find ANY info on the the towers whatsoever.......BTW, every permit and every construction project should and would have been documented....why can't I find ANYTHING?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by esdad71
Once I found the reference to the 70's fire and the buckling, I was convinced 100%.

I have asked you three times now to supply FACTS to back up this statement and you haven't been able to. I have to ask....why do you believe this when even yourself can't back it up?

Before then I researched if it was shoddy workmanship or even poor code enforcement, which is very interesting how they avoided many things being an out of state entity.

First, shoddy workmanship or poor code enforcement? Do you really think such a major project wouldn't have quality control and quality assurance? For someone who claims to have SE background...it sure doesn't sound like it....sorry don't mean to call you out on that but.... Do you mean out of state entity as in the Port Authority? The New York and New Jersey Port Autority is NOT out of state. It's like here in DC....Virginia, Maryland and DC work together...it's definately NOT an out of state entity.

Maybe it is just the way the human mind works, everyone looks at things differently, some more analytical and some jsut accept what they are told, choose a side and run with it.

I hope to be one who doesn't do this. Again...you are grouping people together that yourself has even confided in us that you are a part of. It's OK....you can deal with being labeled a CTer....

Remember how no one thought Bin Laden was tied to these guys, well, we have all seen the video.

What video? The fat Binladen? If Binladen was involved...why does the FBI not think so? Why did the CIA just recently disban the Binladen unit? Why has Bush said that Binladen is not important anymore? I know you won't believe me ...but look it up...it's all true.

I am waiting, for the home movie to be found or released that shows alot more. I watched a special called "Inside the towers" recently and it was pretty interesting.

Of course it was...depending upon your stance. Take care esdad....I'm glad you continue to debate, but personally, IMO your stance and what you believe may be coming to a crash sometime soon. On ther other hand...maybe My stance and my views might be coming to a crash soon. That's what is IMO the difference between the two of us. If I'm wrong in something I say...I will concede....from what I've seen from you...you won't. Like I've said before...a closed mind is the worst thing.

The WTC did not have to adhere it code. As the Port Authority was a bi-state agency, the towers were exempt from New York City building codes. Alot went on from 65 to 72 with trying to get them built. In construction, short cuts are always evident.

I am searching, trust me, but what is wrong with the links i provided? One goes to NIST so you cast them both off? I would hope that you would have read them both entirely, and gives you insight. the difference between the 2 of us is not that I will not concede if wrong, I would. I do not have a closed mind, trust me, because if you showed me proof I was totally wrong tomorrow I would admit it. However, I feel that the evidence I have read, and digested tells me what I beleive. Sorry about that.

I am aware of all the references you made also, thanks. I was talking about the Bin LAden tape released today/yesterday. Bush stated that once and here is context that one line was taken from

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.

And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of

He is saying he is not worried but he is a small piece of a larger puzzle, but amazing how that could be twisted, eh?

[edit on 8-9-2006 by esdad71]