Wait a second?... How is it that I'm the one that's crazy, insane, delusional, and brainwashed?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Doomsday 2029

 

A few questions going back to the OP

1. What happened to Flight 93?
2. Where is there evidence (physical) of explosives
3. How many people were involved in the coverup?

1. I don't know what happened to flight 93, I know what didn't happen.

2. physical evidence for explosives? Well I think most of that got removed from the crime scene. But I have these two things that are called eye balls... and by using these eye balls I can see two towers that turned into dust.

3. 3,571 people were either involved or knew the events were going to happen. It might be more...
Does that seem impossible?

2. physical evidence for explosives? Well I think most of that got removed from the crime scene. But I have these two things that are called eye balls... and by using these eye balls I can see two towers that turned into dust.

3. 3,571 people were either involved or knew the events were going to happen. It might be more...
Does that seem impossible?

Removed from the crime scene? By who!? I'd love to know how you think that would be possible.

And while I don't think even 10,000 people involved would be impossible, I DO think that even 100 people involved... and not ONE would come forward and admit their part in it WOULD be impossible. You are suggesting that 3,571 people had no conscious... no remorse... no desire to come out with the truth? Amazing.

Originally posted by fleabit

2. physical evidence for explosives? Well I think most of that got removed from the crime scene. But I have these two things that are called eye balls... and by using these eye balls I can see two towers that turned into dust.

3. 3,571 people were either involved or knew the events were going to happen. It might be more...
Does that seem impossible?

Removed from the crime scene? By who!? I'd love to know how you think that would be possible.

And while I don't think even 10,000 people involved would be impossible, I DO think that even 100 people involved... and not ONE would come forward and admit their part in it WOULD be impossible. You are suggesting that 3,571 people had no conscious... no remorse... no desire to come out with the truth? Amazing.

1. Where is the steel that we can examine?

2. I never said none of them would come foward... Many have come foward and were either killed or .... or.... NOBODY BELIEVED THEM!!!!

Do you believe Aaron Russo?




nobody believes him.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Raytracer

 

You said: "Now I don't know who did it or how they did it.
All I know is we are being lied to, and frankly that's all there is to know.
There is no point going "how they did this or that, who were they, how many people". How the hell do we know? We didn't pull it off."

Wouldn't it be reasonable to base an opinion on logic rather than "feelings."

What feelings? I meant that's all there is to know to start searching for what is missing, and maybe start considering other possibilities.
But then again, I'm not suggesting anything, because I don't know. That is to say I don't know if the official story is true.

Both towers collapsed the way they did because both towers were damaged in a similar fashion. The tower hit second came down first because it was hit lower down and more weight impinged on the damaged section. The videos that all the detectives use as evidence show that the failures began at or above the impact areas. "Bombs-in-the-basement" arguments are disproved because they would have caused the entire building to start falling at the same time.

Only if the bombs in the basement detonated first, but as you can see for yourself the towers collapsed from the impact point down.

It is difficult to believe that prepositioned demolitions at the impact areas would be able to survive the impact, wait around, undamaged, for hours in a jet fuel fire,

One hour, more or less. And as I said (someone else pointed that out also) in a previous post, you don't need charges on every floor. And moreover at impact point you already have your damage to the structure, meaning the charges there are not needed, so it doesn't matter if they are in place but unable to detonate.

What is worth considering, is that below impact point the structure was pretty much undamaged, and should have been able to sustain the weight of the tower as it always did for much longer.

What happened though is that everything from the point of collapse down offered virtually no resistance to the fall, but was pulverized in the process and ejected large I beams of steel.

They are telling us the fires caused the steel structure to weaken, but that's where I got my problems with the official story. I'm not so convinced the fires were hot enough to do that, or at least not in one hour...

an then be detonated on command. Until there is actual physical evidence [real, not imagined by Prof Jones] the only conclusion is that the aircraft and resultant fires were the only causes of collapse.

I don't know if he imagined his evidence, but it seems you are quite sure about that.

Originally posted by DocsInn
How do both buildings collapse due to “high temperature creep” when the highest possible flame temperature is ~1800F (adiabatic flame temperature for a pile of debris soaked in fuel oil). At that temperature, structural steel will loose ~½ of its yield strength, yet a structural engineer designs a building like that with safety factors of 100 or greater?

This is a very good point indeed.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


yeah youre pretty right we are all decieve by some thing..... they are very powerful now... we are on there hands long ago and till now... who are they... they are the elite.

There is plenty of steel to find to examine including tons in the continental US that were not used for a building project. Look it up.

Cashlink, what does it mean you stand for the truth? You stand for your own assumptions but that is all. You created a post that misquoted me to show I was attacking you. What kind of action is this? You cannot answer my questions because you simply do not have any answers. if you know the 'truth', it should be no problem for a scholar such as yourself. I implore you to attempt to give some answers. What questions did you answer and what did you want answered? Don't remember anything short of you telling me facts based on your assumptions.


As far as who benefited from 9/11, how did oil companies get ahead? They control the price of gas along with OPEC so a major terror incident would not change anything. Now I know that the military complex continued to get lucrative contracts but they would have come without 9/11. That is why I am asking what was gained by an operation that could have not worked?What was gained from taking such a large risk?

reply to post by esdad71

Cashlink, what does it mean you stand for the truth? You stand for your own assumptions but that is all. You created a post that misquoted me to show I was attacking you. What kind of action is this? You cannot answer my questions because you simply do not have any answers. if you know the 'truth', it should be no problem for a scholar such as yourself. I implore you to attempt to give some answers. What questions did you answer and what did you want answered? Don't remember anything short of you telling me facts based on your assumptions.

esdad71, what does it mean you stand for? You stand for your own assumptions but that is all. You created a post that misquoted me to show I was attacking you. What kind of action is this? You cannot answer my questions because you simply do not have any answers. . if you know the 'truth', it should be no problem for a scholar such as yourself. I implore you to attempt to give some answers. What questions did you answer and what did you want answered? Don't remember anything short of you telling me facts based on your assumptions.

As far as who benefited from 9/11, how did oil companies get ahead? They control the price of gas along with OPEC so a major terror incident would not change anything. Now I know that the military complex continued to get lucrative contracts but they would have come without 9/11. That is why I am asking what was gained by an operation that could have not worked?What was gained from taking such a large risk?

Just the oil Co benefited, and of course no one in the White House benefited did they?

I am sure when “you” are courteous enough to start answering my questions and everyone one else’s then people might be more incline to have a conversation with you.

I don't think any one is "nuts". I know "nuts" is politicaly incorect, but you get my drift. A healthy society always questions everything. Looking at the WTC issue I have tried to consider many options. I looked at the way the building was built, consistant with our general knowledge of HOW buildings fall down. I have seen nothing that points to the government f****** us on this. I have considered the following based on; (1--had to take a cursery view, on what would cause a building like the WTC falling almost straight down with a minimum ground level footprint. The building that utilizes a design for sky scrapers since the 1950's is sometimes called a "curtain" like structure is made that way for economic reasons.

The "main core", elevators, utilities, were bunched with in its area as far from the corners or sides as possible. The Empire State building was hit by a bomber due to fog late during WW-2. Yes there was damage and people died (from direct fire contact, and having elevator car cable's severed. ESB is still there... But that points to civil engineering concerns more then anything else. There were no sprinklers in the ESB by the way.

Knowing that the building was kept up almost exclusively from its internal, not wall based or even with a modest degree of "impact" protection on the side or in the courners by steel gurders, two things are going to happen. The tremendous kinetic force of a wide body plane hitting what was a very fragile superstructure, would "blow off" the fire proofing on any internal guirders.This same effect would no doubt weaken everything else. At least one reason so much stuff that showed no evidence of fire was pulverized (2:--The huge amount of jet fuel, a full load considering their wetern destinations would have burned at 1,5000-2,000 F. but don't quote me about that tempeture I have to look it up, but even much lower tempetures would in time do the same thing. Burning jet fuel would have softened the supporting I-beams and because of gravity, cause them to bow-in from the buildings outer walls and corners. As the I-beams seperated from the outer skin, if you were to see the building from a view like looking down/in from the top, you would be able to see one of the mechanics of failure. Any internal weakening would also bring the building down. But a localized area of a lot of burning materials in a localized space would create a greater energy source, more to burn close to hand spreading via thermal radiation Not burning hotter just faster. Just as turning up the heat on a stove(boiling water would make water boil water faster, not hotter) You would have seen the beams as they softened the beams in the buildings center, then work its way out to the "walls".

It would not take much time at all for the beams to soften, then buckle in, with the inevitable result of their weight following the direction of gravity, then "pancake" down. This adds the the momentum of imact from the upper most affected floor, come down with greater and greater impact on the floors below. Also once this happened the effect would also take areas above the impact to come down with nothing below to support them

I would have been very suspicious if the towers DID NOT come down as they did. As many know impact of the largest commercial plane available when the WTC was designed, the 707 was evaluated as to what would have happened should this size commercial hit. (I don't know about how military aircraft of comporable kinetic punch like a C-5, B-52, would have had compared to the 707.Of course with a B-52, were not taking one with a bomb load. I need to check the study on the 707 kinetic impact, thermal effects on structure, to see if this "hypothetical test" would have caused the building to come down. My money is a fuel loaded 707 WOULD bring the building down with a direct impact. It just may have taken longer.

A host of areas can be reviewed in numerous scince textbooks in the area of inorganic chemistry (applies to building materials), thermal effects, kinetic/ballistic effects, civil engineering, etc. Ochams* razor apllies here in spades (even of I cant spell "Ocham") I do think that this make the most sense. I know "conspiracies" do happen, all the time. I just don't think it does here.

reply to post by Raytracer


You said: “What is worth considering, is that below impact point the structure was pretty much undamaged, and should have been able to sustain the weight of the tower as it always did for much longer.”
The weight it always sustained was a static load, not a dynamic load from the collapsing floors above it.

You said: “They are telling us the fires caused the steel structure to weaken, but that's where I got my problems with the official story. I'm not so convinced the fires were hot enough to do that, or at least not in one hour.”
Why are you not convinced? Are you a metallurgist? Do you have a feeling that the truss failures were not as claimed?

As to Prof. Jones "evidence" -- where is it? From what I've seen of him, as a CT he is a fine physics professor.

As to the last statement posted by another, about the safety factor of 100, doesn't this seem a little high?

reply to post by pteridine

As far as melting steel is concerned, that's depending on the different materials the steel is made from, and the environment it's exposed to I by no means would say "steel would melt at X tempeture". I don't think melting steel had anything to do with the buildings coming down, but exposed to heat it will soften, that reduces its ability to be a able to support its weight and that above it. The towers once hit with their windows blown apart may create a "blast furnace like" effect increasing the rate of burn (how fast something burns when static, and how fast it burns when given a huge, open air supply). These are two different environments.

A number of building materials used then such as poly-urathane "drip fire" as they burn, have a scary resemble to burning nalpalm. As it burns what "drips" will stick to anything it hits. Building instalation material, furniture everything adds fuel to any fire. You also have the kinetic impact effects to take into consideration. I don't think fire alone brought the buildings down, but fire of that intensity can line up a series of effects that cause a cascade of structural failures. All of it creates a much higher probability of massive structural failure.

There is no conclusive evidence demolition charges were even present. But know one (OK very) doub't fully loaded aircraft DID hit the towers.

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029

Originally posted by fleabit

2. physical evidence for explosives? Well I think most of that got removed from the crime scene. But I have these two things that are called eye balls... and by using these eye balls I can see two towers that turned into dust.

3. 3,571 people were either involved or knew the events were going to happen. It might be more...
Does that seem impossible?

Removed from the crime scene? By who!? I'd love to know how you think that would be possible.

And while I don't think even 10,000 people involved would be impossible, I DO think that even 100 people involved... and not ONE would come forward and admit their part in it WOULD be impossible. You are suggesting that 3,571 people had no conscious... no remorse... no desire to come out with the truth? Amazing.

1. Where is the steel that we can examine?

2. I never said none of them would come foward... Many have come foward and were either killed or .... or.... NOBODY BELIEVED THEM!!!!

Do you believe Aaron Russo?

nobody believes him.

I, for one, wholeheartedly believe him!

These posts always go down the same road. Always. No matter what I may post or say, no matter how I may suggest it, I am always belittled by someone who wants to dismiss my views.

Cashlink, please, in your next post, ask me any 3 questions you wish. Please. As far as misquouting you, sorry, but it is in cyberspace where you stated I said something i did not to make it look like I was attacking you. I also asked if you could play nice and you cannot. I truly do not mind what your view is but I accept it as as your opinion, because that is all it is. conjecture based on prisonplanet type ramblings.

You claim that anyone who believes the officail story is delusional, I jsut think you are since you will not look at both sides. If the US government initated martial law weeks after 9/11, I would wonder. Instead, they are attempting to protect our nation and they are fighting a global war on terror. This is not a CIA op, it is a world fact. If you think terror is bs, please follow this link

terror link

It is real. the US was hit in 93, the year after clinton was in office, then agian in 2001, the year after Bush was in office. We will be hit this year. so please tell me, are you all going to still blame it on Bush? Also, with the cabinet selections and other appointments, we are in trouble folks....

Once again, Cashlink, give me 3 questions and I will answer them for you. Thanks.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Raytracer

 

You said: “What is worth considering, is that below impact point the structure was pretty much undamaged, and should have been able to sustain the weight of the tower as it always did for much longer.”
The weight it always sustained was a static load, not a dynamic load from the collapsing floors above it.

You said: “They are telling us the fires caused the steel structure to weaken, but that's where I got my problems with the official story. I'm not so convinced the fires were hot enough to do that, or at least not in one hour.”
Why are you not convinced? Are you a metallurgist? Do you have a feeling that the truss failures were not as claimed?

No, I'm not a metallurgist. I'm not convinced because it doesn't make sense to me.
No fire has ever totally collapsed a steel framed building.
We have examples of buildings wrapped in flames for hours without collapsing on themselves.
The towers were not wrapped in flames and only some upper floors burned for one hour before total and sudden collapse.

As to Prof. Jones "evidence" -- where is it? From what I've seen of him, as a CT he is a fine physics professor.

I don't know where is it, you brought him up... you said he had imaginary evidence, so you tell me.

As to the last statement posted by another, about the safety factor of 100, doesn't this seem a little high?

Even considering the over engineered statements it may seem high, but as I said I'm not an engineer, nor a metallurgist, nor a demo expert, nor a physicist, or whatever. Are you?

All I'm saying is to me some floors not even totally on fire are not enough to heat the 47 huge steel core structure in one hour to the point of total and sudden failure.

And even if I'm wrong on the heat thing, and the towers indeed collapsed due to the core weakening, I still can't explain the pulverization of almost all the concrete, and the very fact that from the impact point to the ground there was virtually no resistance.

So which is which? Whether you crush the floors below (and bend/snap all the 47 steel core columns supporting the whole thing, plus the supports for the floors) slowing down the descent (or possibly going down one side) or you just go down at free fall speed, the pulverizing and the cutting being done by something else.

Even if I'm wrong on the heat and the pulverization things altogether, I still can't explain why both towers collapsed in the same manner, while being struck at different heights and only one of them was hit dead on center, the other one being hit near the corner (causing less damage to the steel core by the way).

Why would the two towers 'not' collapse in the same manner? They were designed the same so if there is a catastrophic failure, they will both come down.

As far as the pancake theory, this is beaten to death and misunderstood. The towers, during the final seconds, tipped to one side and then since the lower floors could not hand the load, they buckled and collapsed.

Simply, put both of you arms over your head and hold a piece of plywood, say 2 feet by 2 feet. If you support it with both arms, no issue. Take away an arm and what happens? It tilts and falls to one side. You do not have to be an architect or a scientist to figure this out. It is something called gravity.

If you have never been to this site,
PBS special
Please check it out. It is put into simple terms what happened and is quite informative.

Steel does not have to melt, but weaken to fail. Load balancing is pretty important and it stood for awhile until it could not handle the enourmous weight of the upper floors.

Quick question- How many of you have ever been inside the WTC before 9/11 or visited the site after?


[edit on 7-1-2009 by esdad71]

hello i need to post a thread really bad i need 20 posts
so please exsuces

hello i need to post a thread really bad i need 20 posts
so please exsuces

hello i need to post a thread really bad i need 20 posts
so please exsuces

hello i need to post a thread really bad i need 20 posts
so please exsuces

hello i need to post a thread really bad i need 20 posts
so please exsuces

hello i need to post a thread really bad i need 20 posts
so please exsuces