How many you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?of

I think 911 was an inside job. I can't say at what level it occured at though. It may have been more implicit than actually planning it. The apparent cover-up is what bothers me. Bush's obvious reluctance in investigating it and things like evidence being destroyed and buried. The obvious ignoring of facts that appear to be crucial to an investigation of what really happened.

I do think there is something wrong here though. I think there are too many pointers alerting us to that fact. Someone needs to find out and what bothers me is that it seems that too many people in charge are literally afraid to expose it in fear that it will destroy the American public's faith in their government irretreivably. That is wrong. The truth should prevail.

I do not think it was an inside job. I do think certain lapses allowed it to happen, but I don’t think our government planned it or were behind it. Frankly, I just don’t think they could have pulled it off, let alone kept those involved quiet.

As more time passes since 9/11 I see more and more videos & “experts” come forward with theories, but most are flawed from their inception. I think it is much easiier to believe most of the theories out there then something more along the lines of the basic concept that terrorists flew planes into buildings.

What would people expect these building collapses to look like? Should they have looked like giant Legos? Maybe they should have fallen over in one piece? Why shouldn’t we expect dust? How can the fire be too hot, yet not hot enough?

Holograms, Radio Control Drones, UFOs, Nuclear Detonations… take your pick. Throw enough crap at a wall, eventually something will stick. I’ve seen nothing more then anecdotal observations at best, let alone any proof to support any inside job theories.

At some point, common sense must prevail.

thousands of people died in the towers that day, lots of companies lost lots of money, especially multi billion dollar businesses, insurance, military contractors losing contracts. oh yea, alot of very important people were in the the towers too, with over top secret security clearance. government officials, thier family. the insurance companys had people on site, city employees, secret service, fbi, all lost some in the towers, check the arbituaries. funny tho,they all must of been in on it. martyrdom anyone???

reply to post by nikolat23


Just because something cannot be explained, doesn't automatically mean it's a conspiracy. Just my opinion of course

reply to post by jfj123

Just because something cannot be explained, doesn't automatically mean it's a conspiracy. Just my opinion of course

The ejected steel can be explained by simple physics but it will not support the official 9/11 story. When 9/11 is scrutinized scientifically, the official story becomes an obvious lie.

reply to post by nikolat23


Please post the actual physics equations in which you determined this. Thanks.

reply to post by jfj123


Why would physics equations be needed? It's common sense that a building on its way down wouldn't have the energy to eject steel beams back up isn't it? If you sat down and did the math, sure, that would confirm it. But ascertaining the concept that a building in a downward motion shouldn't be ejecting steel beams out of its sides (horizontally I might add) should be easy and unoverlooked. Am I wrong? It's fishy, is it not?

Another thing people simply refuse to acknowledge (purposefully or unintentionally) is the South Tower's descent. The top of that tower should have toppled off to the east side, according to Newtonian physics. But it didn't, it fell straight down with the rest of the tower. Do physics equations need to be solved to accentuate this inconsistency? Do we need to show our work to get credit for that one?

Yet here is more food for thought. Shouldn't the vertically toppled debris be piled up under the towers instead of 360 degress all around the towers? I mean, the surplus materials on top of the debris couldn't have supported itself, so it would have toppled, but still, there would be debris underneath. If the collapses were indeed natural, then why is all of this debris just scattered about? The towers weren't hit by a hurricane! They were hit by planes!

And another thing: If the buildings were hit in the sides, the heat, impact waves, everything would be distributed through the steel, as steel is a conductor of heat, and it vibrates when you hit it (imagine a hammer and a thin steel rod, then imagine the plane and the Towers). If this is common sense, then why are equations needed? And if equations were presented, then the math would have "been done incorrectly".

reply to post by OMW24


this is what was posted

The ejected steel can be explained by simple physics

Since it is so simple, there should be no reason not to post the information which would definitely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was an inside job.

Math doesn't lie right?

You claim that beams were ejected out the side and horizontally. Have you ever seen a similar example where this didn't happen?

reply to post by jfj123


I've never seen it happen in a building that was supposed to be falling by the impacts of commercial airliners. But, hey, I'm no physicist, and I can't begin to show you where to start besides telling you that trajectory has a hand in it. I couldn't personally show you the math, no. But the concept and realization requires no math. In other words, I don't have another collapsing building to compare the lateral ejections of steel beams to, but if I did, I would think it would be an old casino on the verge of demolition in Las Vegas.

Common sense restricts the thought which consists of phrases like "Hey! That's supposed to happen!". Once I started focusing on finding out information about the possibilities, it took only common thought; it took only math-free thinking. It didn't take thinking with math, it took scientific cause and effect. For example, the argument: A collapsing building shouldn't have horizontally ejecting steel beams shooting away from the collapse site.

Cause: ??? (Supposedly the downward motion of the Tower).
Effect: Steel beams are laterally ejected many yards away from the collapse site. (even the NIST report verifies the discovery of metals some number of yards away from the collapse site).

That's not math. Math can explain things, yes. Math puts everything into perspective, yes. But math cannot replace intuition, and math cannot substitute for common sense.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by OMW24]

Originally posted by OMW24
reply to post by jfj123

 

For example, the argument: A collapsing building shouldn't have horizontally ejecting steel beams shooting away from the collapse site.

Why not?

But math cannot replace intuition, and math cannot substitute for common sense.

Common sense is nothing more but ones perception of how things SHOULD work. If one's perception is skewed for whatever reason, so will their common sense. This is why we shouldn't completely rely on an OPINION over physics, principles of building/structural components, etc...

I'm personally interested in facts over intuition or opinion as facts can be presented in a court of law while opinions typically do not hold as much weight.

In short, opinions are like rectums, everyone has them and most of them stink.

I believe it was an inside job. Ut oh. Now I am on a 900,000 named terrorist list.

reply to post by kyred


keep in mind they're only admitting to 900,000. I'm guessing a more accurate number is around 230,000,000

Originally posted by Nola213
To me the molten iron found "flowing " under not just WTC 1 and 2, but 7 also, that continued to be lava like in consistancy 6 WEEKS after the attacks! When tested, thermite was found in the finally hardened iron substance. This is a fact.

Thermite, (we all saw the videos of it pouring out of the tower minutes before collapse), equal explosives/ and/or CD, which equals coverup by the 9/11 commission, which equals...inside job. Or at the very least, the government withholding a bunch of evidence, which is a conspiracy in my opinion. It is just that simple.

This video here makes a pretty clear and factual case for themite/thermate, imo.

video.google.com...

Can, or have the Official Story people debunk this guy and his evidence? I think they choose to stay away from certain subjects, and this is one of them.

Because of this and molten steel found in the wreckage I believe the towers were probably built with thermite in them. I don't believe a furnace effect would trap enough energy to melt steel.

it doesn't matter. the bottom line is the government failed us.

reply to post by jfj123


Here's a physics fact for you. Newtonian physics suggests that an object in motion cannot be stopped unless there is a tertiary force to do so. Apply this principle to the top of the South Tower. If Newtonian law suggests that the top of the South Tower had momentum to the east and then all of a sudden the top of the tower ceased its progression and fell downward with the rest of the South Tower. According the Newton's first law of inertia, that top part should have toppled off, ripping metals and colums and trusses from the west side and crunching down part of the east side of the un-toppled South Tower, still falling over.

You're right. Let's stick to physics. Opinions are worthless in a 9/11 debate. They're only meaningful in quantum physics or meteorology.

Originally posted by OMW24
reply to post by jfj123

 

Here's a physics fact for you. Newtonian physics suggests that an object in motion cannot be stopped unless there is a tertiary force to do so.

Yes,
An object in motion stays in motion and in the same direction unless acted upon by an outside force.

Apply this principle to the top of the South Tower. If Newtonian law suggests that the top of the South Tower had momentum to the east and then all of a sudden the top of the tower ceased its progression and fell downward with the rest of the South Tower. According the Newton's first law of inertia, that top part should have toppled off, ripping metals and colums and trusses from the west side and crunching down part of the east side of the un-toppled South Tower, still falling over.

OK, what it sounds like you're saying is that the south towers lateral movement should have thrown debris laterally instead of vertically?
Here are a few thoughts:
If this were the correct interpretation, this would have happened regardless of what brought the tower down.
Now if this didn't happen, regardless of cause, another force had to be greater then the lateral force. So that would mean the vertical force would have been greater.

What was the lateral force applied to the tower?
What was the vertical force applied to the tower?

Originally posted by jfj123
You claim that beams were ejected out the side and horizontally. Have you ever seen a similar example where this didn't happen?

So what did it, torsion? A collision? Because you know if the columns just snapped at the bolts and that was it, they would just fall off around a pivot point and fall only a few feet from the inside of the building if that. What specific mechanism is sending stuff in a parabolic arc hundreds of feet away from the connection failure, where gravity is obviously not acting alone?

A collision or extreme torsion case would probably be the most realistic explanation for a single case of this I've heard. But it happened on so large a scale that about 80% of the total masses of the buildings landed outside of the footprints. The debris pile that remained only filled the bottom lobby floors, and even then with odd geometries and not efficiently packed. The basements remained largely intact (not stuffed with debris) and this can be demonstrated with photographs of the excavations during the clean-up. So they were not really a simple vertical collapse, in the technical sense.

Ok I guess I'll add my two cents to this arguement.

First of all about WTC 7. This building was shown on video footage to fall as you may expect a controlled demolition to happen. The main problem with this is that the video only showed the building from one direction. Not only that it only showed the top section of the building. WTC 7 may have in fact fell very chaotically in the other direction. As for those that say the building was not sufficiently damaged there are also pictures of it showing that the bottom few floors had been totally gutted by the twin towers collapse. Although there may have been a controlled demolition, the previous points cannot be scientifically ruled out either. Therefore we can not conclude that there was a conspiracy behind the fall of WTC 7.

Due to the lack of video footage of the Pentagon I can't say much about it. I will however say it is fairly strange that after the impact there you could see office equipment basically untouched by the incident when you look through the hole in the building. I believe even if it was a cruise missile that hit it, the office equipment would have been damaged.

Ok now onto the twin towers collapse.
First off, why did the south tower that was hit second, fall first? The plane hit below the position of the impact on the north tower. This means that the supports had to hold up a larger portion of the building than the supports of the north tower. As the supports were weakened they were quicker to buckle under the larger force pushing down on them from above.
Why were there steel beams launched from the building during it's collapse? As far as I know the science about exactly what happens when a building is in collapse isn't perfect. However, one possibility that could explain why the beams were launched from the building is that one beam (Beam 1) fell to a level below and lay horizontal on the floor. Another beam (beam 2) then fell off one of it's supports and this end of the beam previously supported fell down to be in line with the beam 1 so that the ends touched. Then as the building collapsed the falling mass fell onto the still supported end of beam 2, causing the supported end to fall vertically and the unsupported end to move horizontally. The resulting horizontal force caused beam 1 to fly away from the building. (This is demonstrated far better through the use of a picture. I will try and make one later.) The likelyhood of this happening is fairly slim, but still possible and does not neccesarily mean the use of explosives.
Why was there molten steel found at the base of the building? As a building collapses it releases energy through heat and sound. The sound could be heard for miles, but what happened to the heat. During material testing at university I have found that when a material breaks, the broken ends are fairly hot to the touch. If there is a fairly noticable heat production through a small break during materials testing, imagine the amount of heat that would be produced through the collapse of an entire building. The question remains, would this, as well as the burning fuel, be enough to melt steel?

So right now you might be thinking I am completely against the conspiracy, right? There is one thing that I do find odd about what happened on September 11, and oddly enough it is theoretically provable or disprovable. As the planes hit the tower there was a small flash that preceded the impact of the planes. You may think that this flash is the actual impact, but if you look closely it actually comes slightly beforehand. They cannot be the reflections of the planes either since the buildings were made mainly of concrete and that of course cannot reflect light like that. As some of you may know the twin towers were designed to resist the impact of a smaller plane than what hit it. As far as I know these buildings were one of the first to be designed in that way. Because of this they were likely heavily over-designed due to the new technology being applied to them. Not only that they were to be very big landmarks, which constitutes a reason to over-design them further to ensure their lasting survival. Due to all this it could be possible that these planes were not enough to actually penetrate the facade of the building the way we saw without some help. I propose these flashes were small explosions that were made to go off just before the plane's impact.
So how could this cause the planes to penetrate the building any more than usual? A hole in a structure can cause a massive problem to it's structural integrity. To demonstrate, get a pencil and some paper. Try and push the back of the pencil through the paper as it is. It is very difficult to do. Now make a small hole with the front of the pencil and try again. You will notice how much easier it is to push the pencil through the paper. The same thing applies with the buildings.
How can I be sure this is what happened? Well I can't. Not without the plans of the actual buildings and the knowledge to design for aircraft impacts. I am not sure of anywhere else that this has been fully argued either. But I do remember one of the head engineers of the twin towers saying that what happened was impossible due to the fact they were heavily over-designed. Maybe this is what he was talking about.
If this is true what does it mean for the conspiracy theorists? This does not mean that the government was behind these attacks. It simply means that there could have been more going on than what we saw. If these explosives were planted before the impacts, then whoever planted them had access to both towers in order to plant them. Not only that, the pilots of the planes must have known exactly were to fly, unless of course they were actually piloted by remote control.

Ok well that's my two cents.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
You claim that beams were ejected out the side and horizontally. Have you ever seen a similar example where this didn't happen?

So what did it, torsion? A collision?

Well that doesn't answer my question.

I've seen houses collapse in a straight fall and debris thrown clear of the building footprint. Taking the same idea and applying the force a skyscraper generates upon complete structural failure, I'm sure material would also be ejected laterally.

Part of what creates ideas of conspiracy is that we apply our life experiences to what we have seen on 9/11 videos and in photos. The truth is, the vast majority of those posting here simply don't have experience with structural collapse let alone massive structural collapse initiated by 767 impacts.