More 9/11 conspiracy theory action ahoy -- with pictures!

Hopefully this is one of those cases where there's some really fascinating physical/mechanical process that explains everything, much like the whole "why did the towers fall" conspiracy.

"The woman I share an office with was almost hit by the plane as she drove up washington blvd that morning (our office is a couple of miles from the Pentagon). she ran in and told me about it, and then 15 or 20 mins later it was on the news as "an explosion." I am pretty sure she was not an inside member of a vast conspiracy.

Having driven by then Pentagon shortly there after and many times since, I can tell you that the size of the hole and the amount of blackened concrete was considerable, the pictures don't really give you the scale b/c the width of the bldg makes it seem very low in comparison. They've closed the gap up now, they are trying to get it all fixed as soon as possible, I guess."

My own problem with what this theory getting at was -- what *did* happen to the plane? (Cue talk of shooting down jets over the ocean or whatever.)

(My new browser has a spell checker for forms, never more shall I misspell on ILE, but first I have to teach it british English)

I'd love to know where the conspiracy site guy got his pics from. They are quite clear, and mega-detailed.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00051.htm

Which also brings up a point of why there was never a fighter plane in the air, yet when a small aircraft runs low on cabin pressure, a fighter jet is there within 15 minutes?

http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

As far as the extent of the damage, I had always thought for some reason that the pantagon was actually built to withstand a direct nuclear strike, at least with the kind of atomic weapons payloads that were available when it was constructed.

Moses saw GOD in a burning Bush.

Kinda gives it that added extra edge...

now i'm just more confused... certainly, the missing footage alleged in this slideshow needs to surface.

i just found out one of my friend's is a hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist. we just now became e-friends and his profile page looks like some presidential assassin's. otherwise, he's a cool, nice, normal guy.

i sent him the link to this Popular Mechanics article and he hasn't responded.

(I guess I've felt similar when speaking with devout Christians, but I've dared to attack them.)

er, haven't dared to attack them.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ has been pretty good, but the best article arguing against WTC controlled demolition comes from the professional demolition folks at Implosion World. (PDF link)

lol Americans.

lol everything

LOL @ Americans

LOL @ Teh W0lrd

lol I can't help it

lol I cant

<i> i just found out one of my friend's is a hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist. we just now became e-friends and his profile page looks like some presidential assassin's. otherwise, he's a cool, nice, normal guy.

i sent him the link to this Popular Mechanics article and he hasn't responded.<i/>

Did you, in the interests of a balanced debate, also include links to any of the many articles observing Popular Mechanics' failure to address the issues which feed so much 9/11 conspiracy theory?

Your friend might be more responsive then...

you fucking idiot trolls

nah, i don't really care too much; this isn't a debate. anyone that believes in some sort of 9/11 conspiracy has some serious problems.

i believe in fake concocted evidence like the passport that flew out of the plane and the WTC, through the flames and landed conveniently on the street. LOL

anyone that believes in some sort of 9/11 conspiracy has some serious problems.

Isn't that the Fox news technique? It is! That's what they say anytime someone suggests something they disagree with. "Crazy". Crazy is really the latest rage in put-downs, even by people who don't think about it as a "strategy," like Murdoch's team.

Just now, I feel you were being totally sincere without intention of being offensive. But, really? "Serious problems?" I don't see the connection. That means a lot of the firefighters and police who were there are wackjobs. That reminds me of when people say that "people just can't accept the reality that terrorists got the better of us." Really? To me, it's far easier and comfortable to accept that the bad guys did us harm than it is to even begin to fathom that our own government might do this to us as a false flag operation.

There is a lot of bullshit that went down that has seriously never been addressed. Heave Ho's point is just one. That's total bullshit. Or, I mean, do you think it's sane to suggest that everything was pulverized except a passport. They couldn't find a black box, but they found a passport? And the FBI list of hijackers? Or the florida dentist who was poisoned that was going to testify about the men he suspected were terrorists and was trying desperately to alert the FBI? I don't see why anyone would have to be crazy to suspect some conspiracy here.

Take a look at that documentary "The Power of Nightmares" and see if it still seems so far-fetched. It's not something slapped together like Loose Change by a bunch of college kids. And it gives a good, clear picture of how neocons think. If you have to be nutso to suspect a conspiracy, then it seems like there are a lot of crazy people out there. I mean, isn't it almost half of America now that believes our government at least knew about it and didn't do anything as a pretext for war? Not to mention the suspicion around the world? I mean, I can predict a response like, "Yeah, look how many people voted for Bush" to make the point that people are just idiots, so it's not surprising that so many believe in a conspiracy, but I'm sure a lot of very smart people voted for Bush, too.

Also, I just want to make mention that a lot of people who believe there is a conspiracy simply don't talk about it for fear of being called crazy, but they will anonymously check the appropriate mark on a poll. I don't think you have to challenge your friend or call people crazy just because it is the popular opinion. How does it help the situation for people to be on the side of government secrecy? Obviously, there's some secrets, so help put pressure to get the full story. Why help the government keep it's secrets? Rupert Murdoch isn't paying you to do that. When you look at the millions of dollars that have been spent on other investigations, 9/11 is an insult to our intelligence. $5 million without a definite official conclusion on many issues. Just dropped. And here you are helping these people to say, "Go away, go away, just leave us alone." I don't understand this. Why don't rational, responsible people want to know the full story?

http://www.rightwinged.com/images/photoshops/moonbat.jpg

Moonbat, that's a total Fox insult which is generally followed by hanging up on a caller.

http://ny911truth.org/images/charlie_sheen.jpg
http://ny911truth.org/images/charlie_sheen.jpg
http://ny911truth.org/images/charlie_sheen.jpg

Does that make me 3x the Charlie Sheen Charlie Sheen is?

drugs will set u free

i'm a scientologist

Also, I just want to make mention that a lot of people who believe there is a conspiracy ...help the government

Fixed.

the florida dentist who was poisoned that was going to testify about the men he suspected were terrorists and was trying desperately to alert the FBI?

http://www.geraldpeary.com/reviews/the/parallax-view.jpg

Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[227] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if [the argument] gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.

Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[228]

There are also behavioristic objections to these conspiracy theories, arguing that the conspiracy theorists behave in an irrational or unscholarly way.[229] One objection is that the conspiracy theorists tend to connect unrelated information. Another is that they will often expand the conspiracy to include those who debunk their original theories, such as Popular Mechanics.[229] There is also the tendency of the conspiracy theorists to quote only other conspiracy theorists and provide little if any expert verification of any of their claims.[230]

Scientific American,[231] Popular Mechanics,[232] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[233] have published articles that challenge and discredit various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists have jumped on the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by "senior researcher" Ben Chertoff, who they claim is cousin of Michael Chertoff — current head of Homeland Security.[234] However, no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.[235] Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.[236] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."[237]

From the same Time Magazine article referenced previously, "There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. 'We tend to associate major events — a President or princess dying — with major causes,' says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. 'If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us.' In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting."[238]

(that's taken from the Wikipedia on 9/11 conspiracies. i'm sold.)

BLIND TO THE TRUTH

and you can pretty much read David Hume's On Miracles and replace 'conspiracy' for 'miracles' and it's equally satisfying.

So, the Parallax View is the answer to the dentist in florida.

Moonbat and Charlie Sheen are the answers to:
-the firefighters and police who were there are wackjobs.
-eveything was pulverized except a passport
-the FBI list of hijackers
-the florida dentist who was poisoned

The Wikipedia/David Hume entries are the answer to:
-To me, it's far easier and comfortable to accept that the bad guys did us harm than it is to even begin to fathom that our own government might do this to us as a false flag operation.

http://www.militaryplaques.com/Emblems/America%20Love%20It%20or%20Leave%20It!.jpg

http://www.thebronzeplaque.com/tbp_images/tributes/patriotic/GodBlessAmericaLarge.jpg

And the lack of investigation or conclusion in the official report falls under "well-established theory," "moonbat," "Charlie Sheen" and "David Hume." Now with added jingoism.

http://www.god-bless-america.biz/images%5Cgod_bless_3.gif

http://www.god-bless-america.biz/

eveything was pulverized except a passport

I don't find this suspicious. A PSA flight in 1987 was hijacked disgruntled former employee and power-dived into the ground at full speed. There wasn't any debris larger than nuts and bolts, but the hijackers suicide note was found intact. Even the radio that contained the bomb on Pan Am 103 was pieced together.

Rupert Murdoch/neocons/FOX news is the answer to:

- how none of the thousands upon thousands of people who would have had to have been involved to make this work, or any members of their families, or any of the survivors who worked in the affected buildings, have ever come forward with any remarks to suggest they are being forced to keep their mouths shut, or that dick cheney is responsible, or whatever you think happened besides what actually happened.

let us know when you get your hands on your first "amero"

or shoot a smoker

genius

http://www.completecruisercooling.com/dynamicdata/productImages/Patriotic%20Pup%20Tee.jpg

lol

haha I hope it has the U.S. military budget numbers on back. plus german(!) shepherds are pretty big.

I am going to buy a camaro with my first amero and I kill smokers all the time just for fun with my NRA concealed handgun!

I don't find this suspicious. A PSA flight in 1987 was hijacked disgruntled former employee and power-dived into the ground at full speed.
Sounds like something you heard once to put your mind at ease about this very situation! But, there are several eyewitness who were at WTC who can vouch that everything was pulverized to dust and the largest thing you could find was half of a phone button panel.

The 9/11 truth movement still has to respond as to why they're letting themselves be bankrolled by a Saudi financier and why they're letting Holocaust deniers into their conferences.

Because they're evil-doers, of course. But, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about!

But, there are several eyewitness who were at WTC who can vouch that everything was pulverized to dust and the largest thing you could find was half of a phone button panel

amazing, then, that they ever bothered picking up any of it and barging it to fresh kills! they could have easily just swept it into the sea with leaf blowers!

Sounds like something you heard once to put your mind at ease about this very situation!

When in doubt, criticize the person instead of the statement.

But, there are several eyewitness who were at WTC who can vouch that everything was pulverized to dust and the largest thing you could find was half of a phone button panel.

Not true, because a landing gear wheel and engine parts were found on the streets.

xpost Why would they do that? I've never seen that at any construction site with far less dirt and dust.

When in doubt, criticize the person instead of the statement.
I wasn't criticizing you. I was merely speculating that this little tidbit became public knowledge specifically to remove doubt about this passport situation.

Not true, because a landing gear wheel and engine parts were found on the streets.

Say now, just because that's not where they were standing doesn't make it untrue!

I was merely speculating that this little tidbit became public knowledge specifically to remove doubt about this passport situation.

ah yes, the national transportation safety board, little-known arm of the united states postal investigation service, which actually runs the CIA from their inverted pyramid headquarters below the denver airport

dean did you know there's another internet underneath this one? you can't see it, but it's there, it runs on "port 6667," and it's used by the illuminati to relay coded messages

Dean, I think you're "barking" up the wrong tree.

Were people walking around quoting the national transportation board about this PSA 1987 flight all the time before this passport incident?

Did everyone have opinions on what a "controlled demolition" looks like before this incident?

Dean, I think you're "barking" up the wrong tree.
That's clear, but what have I done, really? I've just raised about 6 or 7 questions and haven't actually said much of anything except asking why people so willing to become little Fox-style attack dogs over this. What difference does it make to YOU as a regular dude if people want to get the full truth out of the government and come up with all sort of wild speculation to that end? It seems like people were "sick of it" before 2002 (so about 3.5 months) and have become more Foxy and intolerant about any raised eyebrows. As far as I'm concerned, 5 million people can storm Washington wearing tinfoil hats and I won't mind.

Were people walking around quoting the national transportation board about this PSA 1987 flight all the time before this passport incident?

I started a whole club at my school about it!

xpost, yeah that's my point

Dean, I didn't mean it as a put-down (or however you spell it). Just that here, the mentality is that you're being silly and kookoo for asking these questions. Personally? Hate to say it, but I don't give a shit. There might be some conspirary going on but I doubt we'll ever find out. That said, I'm happy some people do give a shit and ask questions.

Thanks, Nathalie. Don't worry, I get it. It seems like we're all having a bit of fun at the moment.

As for the amero thing, I just found out about it the other day and asked why nobody was talking about it. There was not one result from searching SPP or North American Union or Amero on ILE. So, I wondered why you never hear about it and why nobody's talking about it. I wasn't trying to spread some conspiracy, but I guess that's how it was interpreted.

yeah nathalie and really good questions like HOW DID A PASSPORT GET HERE? I THOUGHT NOTHING COULD SURVIVE. I MEAN LOOK, IT'S A PASSPORT, IT'S HUGE. IT'S THE SIZE OF A POP TART. HOW COULD IT HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN FORCED OUTWARDS AND AWAY FROM THE FLAMES BY A RUSH OF HOT GASES? IT WEIGHS AT LEAST AN OUNCE OR TWO!

also didn't mcveigh get busted for not having a license plate in a routine traffic stop? I mean seriously what are the chances, who could be that dumb? clearly a case of wag the dog to justify clinton's ethnic cleansing of the branch davidians post facto

well usually dean if nobody's talking about it it means it's probably not worth talking about because some wackjob MADE IT UP

I'm also suspicious of the abandoned single shoes that keep showing up on the sides of roads. who keeps putting them there?

Dean, the point of all these responses is that you can find "unanswered questions" about any large scale, complex event if you look hard enough. There will always be anomalies, suspicious details, things that "don't add up," etc. That doesn't make every single detail worth harping on forever.

Not to mention that every "alternative theory" posited tends to raise much bigger, harder to answer, more obvious questions that the theorists conveniently ignore.

NO TIKI, NO WATCHEE
missing socks cost lives!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/28/63882428_3a98bde248_o.gif

I sometimes pictures ILXors (especially in threads like this one) acting like this.

Didn't one of the engines wind up landing in front of Sonic Youth's recording space on Murray Street, giving the dozing Jim Orourke a rather rude awakening?

also, i take personal offense at the assertation that Charlie Sheen is somehownot the answer to these things.

hi Dean Ge. At about 8:55 AM on 9/11, I picked a piece of paper off the sidewalk about 5 blocks from the North Tower that had clearly once been inside one of its offices. FYI.

But, was it a passport?!

Hey, since we're already talking about this here now, rather than find the thread that surely must exist regarding the "controlled demolition" issue, I'll just mention here. Hurting2 clearly wanted to talk about it upthread, anyway, presumably to tear it to shreds. Everyone's heard about the "freefall speed" issue and the "thurmite/thurmate" issue. Everyone except the conspiracy theorists are content that the sulfur content came from the building and the freefall speed has been thoroughly explained. But, have you ever read this: http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/06/911_disproving_the_wtc_pancake.html#more
?

I mean, actually read it?

ther

xpost was a retarded joke. what I should've said was pieces of paper caught in the wind and strewn all over town, as well as a jet engine or wheel that flew in the street, are sort of different from a passport that was found atop a pile of dust, fairly unharmed, minutes after the attack.

comments = gold

"Shouldn't the much heavier tower that was just hit by explosives fall faster than the much lighter shards of debris?"

http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/towergal.gif

I was about to start a conspiracy theory thread on the fact that all my conspiracy theory links had been deleted from my del.icio.us account. But, then I found them after careful seconds of searching.

that model you linked to seems to assume that force is only transmitted floor-by-floor, i.e. when floor 99 hits floor 98, none of the floors below 98 are affected by the blow (though I could be reading it wrong)

Well, if nothing else, it helped to show me my head is up my ass since the opening sentence says so far there's been "$20,000,000" worth of investigation by NIST into this. And, if you go up a few posts, you can see where I wrote "$5million and dropped. Just dropped." How dramatic of me.

my farts actually come from dean ge, i can't prove it conclusively yet though

That was very bizarre because I literally just farted and thought, "Hmm stinkier than usual." Not a joke!

I like that guy's selective reading of isaac newton

well usually dean if nobody's talking about it it means it's probably not worth talking about because some wackjob MADE IT UP

Lou Dobbs = wackjob
Paris Hilton = worth talking about

uh yes, those results have been reached independently at several research institutions across the globe

I'm also suspicious of the abandoned single shoes that keep showing up on the sides of roads. who keeps putting them there?

-- El Tomboto, Monday, July 2, 2007 3:11 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

http://1976design.com/blog/images/large/494a.jpg

Also, whenever you see shoes on a wire like this, it's 9 times out of 10 the CIA's fault, b/c they are trying to communicate with postal workers re: stealing VISA's FDIC authorization to link accounts on the internet to terrorists.

FYI, I have seen kids do that. Kids I know and who are in no way involved with the CIA. These are kids who are just having fun with their shoes.

uh yes, those results have been reached independently at several research institutions across the globe

name one

you're more blind than I thought.

no those kids are part of the CIA's Cubby Agent program doofus

"kids having fun with their shoes"

I am going to have to have a serious talk with my nephew.

kids just having fun with their commercial jet planes

pfffft. yeah right. why do you think kids don't play outside anymore, deanie?????

they'll get hit in the head with powerbars thrown by Kenny G's "wetworks" team

This is becoming too abstract for me. Let's get back to the issues. Am I crazy?

no let's get back to kenny g. "playing golf" (wink wink)

http://content-golf.live.advance.net/images/gd200612/musickennyg.jpg

most people don't know that Kenny G is second in line to wear the True Miter at bohemian grove after Elvis dies

I think it goes Elvis - Bono - Kenny G

Bono may not take it though cause it's a pretty time-consuming gig, I hear

ha, i read "No. 1 Musician Golfer" as "No, I musician golfer"

Bob Weir is in the Bohemian Grove. And we know the Grateful Dead were funded by the CIA.

A true student of the cryptomasons would have immediately noted the arcane symmetro-sigils in between the magazine title and kenny's name

http://frankthetank.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/kenny-g-tiger.jpg

Let's say, hypothetically, just hypothetically, that there was no passport that survived the crash. What explanations are there? Maybe someone got something wrong. Maybe someone lied about it existing. Maybe it was one of things that turned up in a chain email and is now an urban legend, as has happened hundreds of times before. Maybe the passport was old/lost by a victim before the crash.

Or MAYBE the government thought that having three great big sodding planes crash into the middle of two major cities wasn't convincing enough, so they sneaked on board the plane before it took off, stole personal belongings without anyone noticing, and littered them around strategically to PROVE that there really were people on the plane and it wasn't just a missile with wings painted on or something.

There may well be holes and things that don't have obvious explanations, but not having an obvious explanation doesn't mean you jump straight to any other theory, especially one that makes even less sense.

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/74023772.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1932BBB80AB57C976021BF116616ED53BB2B6D9857F40C99A17http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/74023772.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1932BBB80AB57C976021BF116616ED53BB2B6D9857F40C99A17http://www.timecube.com/rotate.gif

How else would this man get his "fuck you money?" (Except by being born rich, I mean, which he was.)

http://www.dgans.com/gd.gallery/weir.finger.830713.jpg

The CIA paid 'em to zombify a bunch of hippies while the Vietnam war was going on.

The Grateful Dead was the only band that didn't do serious jail time for being busted with gigantic amounts of drugs, as far as I know.

http://delivery.viewimages.com/xv/74023772.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1932BBB80AB57C976021BF116616ED53BB2B6D9857F40C99A17http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/baphomet(1).bmp

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bohemian-owl.jpg

V, I couldn't follow that. I am stupid and crazy, so that might be why, but are you saying that suppose hypothetically we had heard there was a passport but then it turned out there wasn't?

http://frankthetank.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/kenny-g-tiger.jpg

"I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take this away from you now."

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Grateful_Dead

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/cc/Crazyhorse.gif

http://home.gwu.edu/~tombot/spinningFM.gif
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/c/cc/Crazyhorse.gif
http://home.gwu.edu/~tombot/spinningFM.gif

that just happened
that blow yr mind

It was better before.

yeah, a bit more enigmatic.

still i like both versions.

http://www.aalf.ws/free-graphics/PosterWitchHuntTobacco.gif

A true student of the cryptomasons would have immediately noted the arcane symmetro-sigils in between the magazine title and kenny's name

Just because a person notices something doesn't mean he has to mention it. I believe the reflective images represent the east and west, same as the double-headed eagle, which refers to total domination of the world, correct?

the fact that his saxophone is BEHIND him and the flag is in FRONT speaks volumes.

I thought that was all sexual innuendo. (sax in u end oh!) meaning that he's just gay and willing to take the flag out of his hole for you to put your balls in.

Or, happily bending the pole in the hole. either way.

no, it's meant to give you that superficial impression but really it means, he's a musician second, world-conquering illuminati mastermind first.

Oh, yes, and by the direction of the sun, it appears he is facing east. Good catch.

like all crypto-masonic messages it contains many layers of meaninglessness

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/un_2.jpg

FANTSAY ISLAND WAS REAL IT WAS A DOCUMENTARY NOT A TV DRAMA

http://www.franksreelreviews.com/shorttakes/tattoo/cottage2.jpg

xpost the angles of that photo are meant to disturb the mind

or was it?

http://ugly-halloween-costumes.com/scary/Fantasy-Island-Tattoo/tattoo-big.jpg

dean, do you agree that the vast majority of people writing scientifically about WTC conspiracies have questionable backgrounds in physics, architecture, and chemistry?

also, doesn't whole argument suffer from a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by citing only other conspiracy bloggers? (Ex: 'According to Thompson's article on 911libertyordeath.com the flames could NEVER have reached 1800 degrees, because, as nonewworldorder.com has noted, jet engine fuel lacks the..')

and i still don't see why CHENEY would plant bombs in the buildings AND ram two planes into them. to ensure that they fell?

ARGH. MUST STOP ENCOURAGING.

answering in order of appearance...
I don't know, I haven't read them. Actually, my hilarious joke to follow up my statements "Have you actually read this?" was going to be "... because I haven't," but I never got the opportunity til just now to unleash the punchline. Next, I don't know because I don't know what post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy means and your parenthetical example did not help me deduce anything I should take a position on. Finally, I never said Cheney put bombs in the buildings and rammed two planes into them. I think it was Michael Moore in a secret plot to frame the government and make a fortune.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/osama_fake_reals.jpg

Which Osama confessed to the attacks?

http://www.aref-adib.com/archives/arafatstar.jpg

Which one played drums for the most popular group in the universe?

I wasn't criticizing you. I was merely speculating that this little tidbit became public knowledge specifically to remove doubt about this passport situation.

This wasn't a little tidbit of knowledge dug up after the fact. The PSA crash was a big story in California at the time and basically put the airline out of business.

Why are you affirming the opposite of something I didn't say? Big story in California that you remembered as weird oddness and this comes from your personal recollection or big story in California that was wheeled out and repeated after the fact, which is my actual speculation?

As for the WTC pancake hypothesis, the Implosion World article I linked to upthread goes into the details. Bottom line is that it didn't pancake - there were 40 story long chunks of the WTC falling on the surrounding buildings.

The funny thing is that there are plenty of meaty 9/11 conspiracies surrounding the financial linkages, Chertoff and Norquist's Saudi connections, Cheney's activities on 9/11, and the Venice, FL flight school that Atta operated out of to fuel several dozen books, but the disinfotainment crowd would rather talk about remote-controlled planes, planted explosives, and fake cell-phone calls.

x-post

oh, i thought you were really into this. nm.

but the disinfotainment crowd would rather talk about remote-controlled planes, planted explosives, and fake cell-phone calls.

Just a few of the things I haven't mentioned, personally...

Why are you affirming the opposite of something I didn't say? Big story in California that you remembered as weird oddness and this comes from your personal recollection or big story in California that was wheeled out and repeated after the fact, which is my actual speculation?

Neither. Finding Atta's intact passport on the ground is odd, but nothing more than that because unlikely things from aircraft accidents are found all the time.

Additionally, what does that prove? I believe that most everyone is in agreement that Atta was on the plane.

It doesn't "prove" anything, I just speculated that this is the sort of thing used to disprove a relatively incomparable event.

It doesn't "prove" anything, I just speculated that this is the sort of thing used to disprove a relatively incomparable event.

So why waste your (and all of us) time with this? Less meta-discussion, more conspiracy please.

You're the one who brought it up and then asked what it proved, not me.

DIE DIE DIE.

Why are you all riled up?

oh, i thought you were really into this. nm.

I'm really into people discussing the specific point raised rather than lumping it in with others to discredit it and then using the Fox technique of calling people crazy. That's all.

I'm still disappointed that Art Bell announced his retirement. Again.

isn't he dead?

Nope.

So dean, you're just like a really good-natured guy that likes to "promote discussion" and "ask questions" right?

Is it just me or do those quotation marks totally alter the meaning of that question?

dude, "give" "up"

Are you encouraging a take down?

sʇuɐdʎzɐɹɔ ǝɹ,noʎ ʞuıɥʇ ı

ɥɔunɹɔ uıɐʇdɐɔ sı ʎǝuǝɥɔ ʞɔıp

I don't speak look-like-russian-upside-down-backwards-english.

ɯǝ1qoɹd ǝɥʇ ɟo ʇɹɐd ǝɹɐ noʎ

poop dood

noʎ ɟo sʞuıɥʇ uıɹp1ɐ zznq ʇɐɥʍ sı sıɥʇ

5318008

Why are you all riled up?

-- dean ge, Monday, July 2, 2007 4:33 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Link

they wouldn't be so angry if you weren't on to something dude

55318008

i actually read this story somewhere that the u.s. government has been killing thousands of people in the middle east for years now for completely made-up and bogus reasons. i don't know if i believe it. so many crackpot theories out there.

Scott, you probably won't believe me, but I had goathead soup at Georgetown University with young W and "the Chin" as we called him back then over acid mind-control buttrape of local prostitutes and various odd torture to warp their minds. The only reason it bothers me these days is that it somehow got out of hand and turned into a regular cat-killing situation w/ chiseled open skulls and electrodes. I began to wonder how it was that our initial enticements made any sense in relation to their eventual slavery and mistreatment. But, as it turns out, it didnt' matter much. Many of the people involved went on to great success, like Tim Leary, Jack Nicholson and Ken Keasey.

the real unsolved mystery is what happened to dean's sense of humor

It remains where it has always been, in an extra dimension.

HIS PASSPORT HIS PASSPORT - HOW COULD THEY GET HIS PASSPORT

They kilt him and took it.

But he remained alive, too, that's the trick.

So you're mocking your own point?

What was that again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNtTcS2vrUg
great comments on the youtube page about the technical stuff

after you read those comments watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

http://i54.tinypic.com/11llf5w.jpg

best youtubes I posted yet imo

really insightful comments here too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWuAH3P9s1k

I'm sad that you wouldn't bother to watch my youtubes
I finally think I have the defining piece of evidence that truthers desire

man, i want your arguments to not be total nonsense, lorax, in the spirit of underdog solidarity if nothing else. but that "experiment" you posted is the most ridiculously unscientific and inconclusive thing i've ever seen. there's no real attempt to duplicate the conditions and temperatures inside the building, so the failure to duplicate the effect on a structural beam is meaningless. doesn't mean that you're wrong, only that you haven't proven anything.

doesn't mean that you're wrong, only that you haven't proven anything.

http://chud.com/articles/content_images/5/tommyleejones.jpg

http://i53.tinypic.com/v805kh.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/v805kh.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/v805kh.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/v805kh.gif

xpp
sort of like when I got all excited to see discovery channel do this 2 hour special where they had experiments to test out some conspiracy theories - all of which were unscientific as well. very disappointing

thermite and other evidence of explosions (non-plane related) is really going to be the smoking gun whenever if the truther movement gets the compolete inquiry they so deserve

311 + 600 = 911

911 + / = 9/11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCUefdPoQLk

so much thermite! it didn't occur naturally

freefall accelerations
photos of humongous chunks of debris blasting away during the buildings
first hand accounts of explosions
sound recordings of explosions

http://i53.tinypic.com/11ruf5f.png

Is Master P's son trying to say 9/11 turned him into a messiah or something?

These microspheres, the iron microspheres, are endemic in all of the WTC dust - in fact USGS found them and documented them first and other environmental firms like RJ Lee. These previously molten iron microscopes comprise 6% of the dust in some cases found ontop of the Dolchavank(?) building, everywhere really, and by the way they say - supporters of the official story will say that is just from the cleanup equipment and the welding and so forth - no, these are up on top of the high-rises, they're collected even in some samples in ten minutes, up on the brooklyn bridge a sample was collected within 10 minutes of the collapse of the towers. no, these are not polluted and it is documented very well by official sources. these have the chemical evidence of thermite... very clear chemical fingerprint of thermite

shut up

9/11 conspiracy theories are really the fucking lowest, stupidest shit.

and what would they be if they are right

Your mom.

Is what they would be.

I know it sounds like it doesn't make sense but trust me.

there is plenty of reasons for conspirators in our government to take down the WTC

but that's not what happened.

There is a lot of bullshit that went down that has seriously never been addressed. Heave Ho's point is just one.

NO TIKI, NO WATCHEE
missing socks cost lives!

― sexyDancer

my cat has a lot of reasons to take down the WTC

RIP CaptainLorax

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY

don't waste your time on us, CaptainLorax, we're already the voice inside ur head

captainlorax, instead of poking holes in the accepted story, I'd be interested to hear you map out a long and detailed story that explains what happened.

you can make it up - it doesn't even have to be what you really believe. but it has to include:

a. what really happened and how?
b. why did it happen like that? what was the purpose and how does that match the events that took place? for example, if it was to attack iraq, how come most of the people involved weren't from iraq? what group had the motive and why was this the single best conspiracy for their particular motive?
c. how did they manage to create such a vast conspiracy, which would involve so many people, without any leaks? wouldn't there be, at least somewhere along the way, someone opposed to this? were they killed?

also d. what difference it will ever make

being banned for posting about 9/11 conspiracy in a 9/11 conspiracy thread... ummm

Why is 9/11 Truth so important:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWxue5DH-QI

c. how did they manage to create such a vast conspiracy, which would involve so many people, without any leaks? wouldn't there be, at least somewhere along the way, someone opposed to this? were they killed?

it's doesn't need to be as many people as you think

okay then! sketch out a conspiracy w/ fewer people.

bonus points if you can limit the conspirators to two people and one toaster.

how did 14,000 jews keep the secret while they were off work that day

but I want something that explains everything. like I said, it doesn't have to be what you believe, write a fictional story - but it has to be an entire conspiracy that is plausible w/r/t motives and capabilities.

xp

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/newwavexhomicide/Messageboard%20Taunts/MJpopcorn.gif

Obviously, Tommy Wisseau was involved, and The Room was a propaganda video created by the United States government to brainwash us to be human robots.

http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season11/wine14.mp3

Obviously, Tommy Wisseau was involved

i suspect tommy chong was involved, too.

lol @ you & your links. why should we click on any of them when youve already disowned the first series of links you posted

'no these are the REAL ones'
next time u support an argument imo u should probably try looking into what exactly the argument is first

I wonder if there were any hipsters ironically being conspiratorial.

lol i was gonna say. i'm afraid to click on those cryptic-sounding links.

xpp
that was a whole nother thread deej, this thread has salvageable links

have to say this thread is blowing my mind

btw captainlorax I have to say...I've always thought there was something suspicious about the moon landings. do you agree?

I never cared about any other conspiracy nor believed in any other conspiracy

suspicious

oh... I was hoping you could post some more youtube videos that would elucidate the truth

you are dodging my question unless that mp3 is an attempt at an answer but I'm not gonna click on any mp3 or youtube

my .mp3 is lenny saying "ow dance rummy"

"now* dance rummy"

dun get it, why would it be difficult to come up with an alternate history of 9/11? esp considering all of the things wrong w/ the accepted story.

But Lorax…
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vj2e1m7Hlgw/TBAfJR9sJ7I/AAAAAAAAm80/wTrNMr2bnHE/s1600/Rubicon.jpg

problem, lorax, is that i'm betting you didn't know anything about thermite, thermete, iron microspheres, or how to identify the "chemical signatures" of any of the events/reactions you're talking about prior to your exposure to truther propaganda. just a guess... i certainly didn't and still don't. since i'm not expert in these areas, i refrain from passing judgment on what is or isn't good evidence. absolutely any kind of horseshit can pass itself off as "good evidence" to an audience of credulous laypersons, after all. when you don't have real scientific/technical expertise AND firsthand access to hard evidence, it's generally best to defer to expert consensus, to the extent that such a thing is available.

now, one could argue that the jury's still out wr2 9/11, that there is no real & convincing expert/scientific consensus regarding what happened and how. but that's hardly a statement in support of the truthers. it's merely an indication that one is curious and (hopefully) open-minded. remember that just because someone says that evidence exists or that it proves something does not necessarily mean that this is actually true.

what i don't understand is why people who like conspiracy theories don't recognize what a great, crazy conspiracy the actual story of 9/11 is. the scion of an arabian power-family with ties to the carlyle group and the bush family builds an international terrorist network on the infrastructure of a cia-trained rebel force and sneaks 20 guys into the country to learn how to fly airplanes, and then paralyzes the nation with a simple, coordinated attack on three buildings. it's total paranoid-thriller stuff, i don't see how it needs to be somehow more nefarious or intrigue-ridden.

No Freemasons, no credibility.

For Completeness Sake

Why Doubt 9/11?
Top 20 from Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Old Top 40 from 911Truth.org
50 Facts (the writer may annoy you but some good facts here)

-------------------------------------------
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6678/explo2.jpg
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction
3. Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
7. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
10. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".

all this from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
there's links inside each of the numbered statements if you go to the site and look at the right column
this new site already has

http://coreofcorruption.net/images/Tshirt_black.jpg

investigate captain lorax

false prophets talk in youtube links

oh... I was hoping you could post some more youtube videos that would elucidate the truth
― subtle like the g in 'goole' (dayo)

what is it. i am so confused

whats confusing about getting internet-pwned over foisting upon ppl the deluded rationale of america's finest bullshit artists?

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/06/aabf18_sarcasm_detector.jpg

dr frink was hired 4 the controlled explosion

exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives

Impermissable logic here. Almost all the characteristics listed apply to destruction by explosion. However, not every explosion is caused by explosives in the usual sense of the word.

It is worth noting the propulsion of gasoline engines is provided by controlled detonations of a fuel/air mixture. Fuel/air explosives are among the most powerful of conventional explosives, and some military aerial bombs use this approach. Jet fuel is both a fuel and an explosive.

The list was too stupid to be persuasive.

captain lorax could you say more about the 'laws of conservation of momentum' and how they apply during explosions

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives getting fucking hit with a fucking plane:

exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives

Impermissable logic here. Almost all the characteristics listed apply to destruction by explosion. However, not every explosion is caused by explosives in the usual sense of the word.

It is worth noting the propulsion of gasoline engines is provided by controlled detonations of a fuel/air mixture. Fuel/air explosives are among the most powerful of conventional explosives, and some military aerial bombs use this approach. Jet fuel is both a fuel and an explosive.

The list was too stupid to be persuasive.

most of that jet fuel burned-out, outside of the towers. Go back and look at the films of the towers just as the planes hit. You’ll see large billows of flames high above the streets immediately burning themselves out.

How do you account for all the jet fuel at building 7

captain lorax I am curious as to how you know what jet fuel burning looks like

let's say I had a gallon bucket of jet fuel and I put it in the middle of a large, large parking lot. from a distance of several feet away I throw a match into it. what would happen? how big would the explosion be? how much smoke would there be? how long would it take for the jet fuel to completely combust? what would the color of the flames be?

I get the distinct impression that these "the debris wouldn't have fallen that way" people have never witnessed anything big go wrong, ever.

yeah but these are ENGINEERS saying this. you know, real engineers, not the ones who think 9/11 truth is a bunch of fucking pseudoscientific conspiracy theorist bullshit

also architects, who are experts in the field of explosives

I am just curious as to how captain lorax knows so much about the physics of combustions and explosions. were you a science/physics major in college, or grad school, captain lorax?

still waiting for the alternate 9/11 explanation

The diabolical plan:

Let's put bombs in the WTC, just in case the planes don't work. Don't talk about the bombs or blame it on Al Qaeda though.

And let's just randomly crash the one headed for the White House in rural Pennsylvania.

No planes for the Pentagon though, gotta use a missile for that one.

Only a controlled demolition would've made the devil's face appear in that huge plume of smoke and fire.

http://i53.tinypic.com/ostjxs.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/ostjxs.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/ostjxs.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/ostjxs.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/ostjxs.gif

http://i53.tinypic.com/ostjxs.gif

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/11030/1177014257.jpg

^why has no one addressed this?

"jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel. We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted."

but steel columns did melt

right. so someone had to hit it with a chair

cool captain lorax - but how did you know that most of the jet fuel burned up in the first few seconds after the crash?

captainlorax

the columns did not have to melt

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300˚F” (Eagar, 2002).

There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300˚F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300˚F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15]

The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump.

In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that “very intense” fires “burned for a long time.”[17] But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.

Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows.

Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: “Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments” (1988, Appendix A).

These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST’s claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18]

A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service” (Glover, 2002).

cool captain lorax - but you still haven't answered my question

“They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]”

clearly they could not have been destroyed by a bomb. I maintain 9/11 was hulk hogan's fault.

Maybe the towers are still there!

the columns are still there because they did not reach the temperatures required for them to collapse.

something that is wrong from the piece of someone's 2005 essay that I posted is that there is molten steel...

again, the first youtube I posted to this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8

but it couldn't have been caused by the jet fuel dayo
"can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted."

erm* "jet fuel can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel."

cool lorax trolling board

Not all metal is steel, you dumb motherfuckers.

lorax I'm not asking bout that - just wanna know why you think all the jet fuel combusted within the first few seconds

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (August 30, 2006)

(NIST NCSTAR throughout this document refers to one of the 43 volumes that comprise NIST’s final report on the WTC Towers issued in October 2005. All sections of the report listed in this document are available at http://wtc.nist.gov.)

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

you guys can say all the mean, nasty stuff you want about Captain Lorax (aka CaptainLorax) but the fact is the guy is just completely awesome at copying and pasting, like seriously one of the most skilled copiers and pasters EVER. youtube links, large blocks of text, image urls... you name it, he can copy it from the page, and then post it onto another page.

still waiting for the alternate 9/11 explanation

― iatee, Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:40 AM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark

word, me too. it is going to be awesome. might take a little while cause he's google for each word and then copy and paste it into his document, which takes longer than typing (probably - hasn't been proven) but will be totally worth it. you will mark my words~

xp dayo

i dunno, even if most of it didn't burn up in the first few seconds you can bet it burned quickly whenever fire did hit it

My favorite conspiracy theory, which I almost never hear mentioned, is that the WTC was designed and build for the purpose of being destroyed on 9/11. I think the theory is either that the towers were built not to withstand being hit by jets, or that it was built with explosives pre-planted. Probably both.

(whoa. typed that only a few minutes ago, and expecting it to be buried and lost in the fray)

we all know that lorax is either fucking bonkers or the #1 sockpuppet in the history of ilx

but i want it to be noted that 9/13/10 was officially the day when contenderizer jumped the shark rubble

crut, seriously? you really going to believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology (whatever that is) over a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology?

crut. come on. wake up. smell the thermite.

okay crut explain all the molten steel

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

^that is more bunk then anything else

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg
molten metal before the collapse

sorry u feel that way

FACT: there has been no good independent investigation

http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif
http://i52.tinypic.com/2911egj.gif

yup... that flaming debris is definitely molten metal

There is a lot of bullshit that went down that has seriously never been addressed. Heave Ho's point is just one.

― k3vin k., Monday, September 13, 2010 8:19 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is killing me

http://i54.tinypic.com/vq5v7m.gif

FACT: there have been no-good, low-down, dirty, rotten, independent investigations.

FACT: there have been no good CaptainLorax posts

what is a "good" independent investigation CaptainLorax

in your opinion or whomever you're getting your opinions from's opinion

A&W Root Beer > Coke

^^^^^^^^ example of a bad independent investigation

nah man this root beer is so good

http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]
http://0x1a.com/#[[World%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots]]

goodnight

good formatting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1tAYmMjLdY

i say let it play

― max, Sunday, August 3, 2008

xp dayo

i dunno, even if most of it didn't burn up in the first few seconds you can bet it burned quickly whenever fire did hit it

― false prophets talk in metaphors (CaptainLorax), Tuesday, September 14, 2010 12:05 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

lorax delivers

i would like to know, lorax, how much you recommend betting, and at what odds

http://acephalous.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c2df453ef0133f41d8a54970b-popup

i applied for a job teaching the physics course at a fine art school. i had to design three courses. did the usual 20th century physics, cosmology, whatever stuff. course 3 was "the physics and statistics of 9/11 conspiracy theories". i only wrote the syllabus, not the whole course, but i can safely say: these people are the fucking worst.

sb51 was an inside job

c. how did they manage to create such a vast conspiracy, which would involve so many people, without any leaks? wouldn't there be, at least somewhere along the way, someone opposed to this? were they killed?

it's doesn't need to be as many people as you think

― false prophets talk in metaphors (CaptainLorax), Tuesday, 14 September 2010 01:35 (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

...

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

They had to be in on it, right? I mean, whichever shadowy cabal was behind this whole nefarious enterprise wouldn't give 200 independent experts carte blanche to critically examine all the evidence and actually investigate the very conspiracy they were behind?

Are we guys distinguishing between btw. the "9/11 was an inside job loonies" and the "Flight 93 was shot down" loonies? Because I agree that one of the groups of loonies are complete idiots, and AM one of the other groups of loonies.

no

the thermite readings for that field in pennsylvania are insane

pretty sure "Shanskville" is Susquehannock dialect for "thermite"

i think it's just time to accept the twin towers are gone but there'll probably be some new buildings there eventually

Then get to the devastating counter-proofs already. The ones about the building collapse are clear enough; haven't really seen any about Flight 93.

x-post. Ha ha. Should say that my inclination to believe that Flight 93 was shot down is not based on crap physics but on the unbelievability of the "Let's Roll" story, report of the plane being tracked by fighter planes on that day, and some things I have heard from military types. It bugs me to no end that there hasn't been any real examination of that flight from folks who aren't "911 INSIDE JOB" idiots, alas.

Should say that my inclination to believe that Flight 93 was shot down is not based on crap physics but on the unbelievability of the "Let's Roll" story

as someone already said, the whole story is completely unbelievable! why add another level of unsubstantiated make-believe?

Because the very understandable, non-weird decision to shoot down a plane headed for Downtown DC was not one that the Bush Administration thought it could survive from a political perspective.

mental

That would be like a plane crashing into the White House, in terms of survivability from a political perspective.

the thermite readings for that field in pennsylvania are insane

Agreed. I mean, just check out this actual picture from that Pennsylvania field:

http://www.primetermite.com/images/subterranean%20termite%20hill.jpg

Because the very understandable, non-weird decision to shoot down a plane headed for Downtown DC was not one that the Bush Administration thought it could survive from a political perspective.

is there any evidence for this? ime if you want to contradict everything everyone in a position to know is telling you, by swapping one story that's like something out of a movie for another story that's like something out of a movie, you're going to need some evidence, otherwise people are going to draw conclusions about you.

honestly 9/11 truther types are really not worth arguing with because they will never, ever believe that 9/11 was carried out the way it was no matter what evidence is presented because they don't want to believe it, either to make their lives a little more exciting/give them meaning or because they're so immature as to believe the world exists in black-and-white (and of course they're the noble champions for truth unlike the rest of the people in the world, who are all complete idiots or in on it.) pointless to debate people who don't have answers but only questions that they don't really want to hear the answers to.

i have a friend who sincerely believes aliens walk among us

it's just something u have to accept and move on and try not to talk about

i love this photo of truthers in cardiff on one of lorax's links

http://911truthnews.com/wp-content/uploads/Cardiff.jpg

not based on crap physics but on the unbelievability of the "Let's Roll" story

Dude there are fucking COCKPIT TAPES.

how is barry obams is the joker again?

honestly 9/11 truther types are really not worth arguing with because they will never, ever believe that 9/11 was carried out the way it was no matter what evidence is presented because they don't want to believe it, either to make their lives a little more exciting/give them meaning

totally.

i meant to highlight the "make their lives a little more exciting/give them meaning" part.

I guess this is my thread to come out of the closet with my strong hope/belief that bigfoot is still alive somewhere.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

― k3vin k., Tuesday, September 14, 2010 12:14 PM (10 hours ago) Bookmark

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

The true behind Sheeple is the greatest cryptozoological conspiracy of our time..

The fucking COCKPIT TAPES are the highjackers fighting with the pilots; there are no fucking COCKPIT TAPES of a battle between highjackers and passengers. There are also, weirdly enough, no fucking TAPES of the call to the 911 operator wherein, as the dispatcher never tired of telling the media (her eyes darting wildly) that dude said "let's roll."

There were also contemporary reports of fighter planes dispatched to follow Flight 93 -- look for any radio aircheck of the day in question, not just on the loony toons 911 TRUTH websites.

I think the 911 terrorist attacks were carried out by groups of foreign terrorists flying planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I also think that the plane headed for downtown DC was shot down by American fighter planes. I do not like the Truther idiots who tell me I am a fool for knowing something more about how building fall down. But I am also not really impressed by dudes like you all just hollering and telling me I am one of those Truthers for whatever reason. Forgive me if I show myself disinclined to believe the official version of events merely because it is the official version of events.

I think you'd have to be an idiot to believe the "911 Inside Job" nonsense in the face of overwhelming physical evidence, and I think it would be insane to believe that a government would take those buildings down and make up that story for it. I do not believe it is insane to think that a government would shoot down a civilian aircraft to avoid huge damage to the government and civilians, and do not think that it would be ridiculous to believe that a government would push a cover story that doesn't rely on physical evidence to avoid unpleasant political fall-out from shooting down that plane.

I can tell by your caps that this means a lot to you.

"Forgive me if I show myself disinclined to believe the official version of events merely because it is the official version of events"

No.

Not my caps, Kerm. I was mocking.

"Dude there are fucking COCKPIT TAPES.

― Shock and Awe High School (Phil D.)"

Truthers probably think that the Bush Administration was purposely incompetent in every other aspect just to LOOK like they couldn't have pulled off 9/11.

The fucking COCKPIT TAPES are the highjackers fighting with the pilots; there are no fucking COCKPIT TAPES of a battle between highjackers and passengers

The tapes include the hijackers discussing the passengers who are at that very moment trying to fight their way into the cockpit, and their decision to plow the plane in. The "Let's Roll" story does not require, despite your insinuation here, an actual fight between hijackers and passengers; it requires the hijackers to believe the passengers were about to enter the cockpit, and to abort the mission on that basis. Which is exactly what happened. You can hear them discussing it for a full five minutes, hear them maneuvering the plane in an attempt to stop the passengers gaining access, hear them decide to "put it in and pull it down," and hear them chanting "Allahu Akbar!" as they head for the ground. I mean, for fuck's sake.

There were also contemporary reports of fighter planes dispatched to follow Flight 93 -- look for any radio aircheck of the day in question

Oh, well, if radio said it, it must be true. Radio also said that car bombs had gone off that day in front of the Treasury Dept. and several embassies, so that must have happened also.

But who am I to argue with "some things" that you heard from "some military types?"

Here is the difference between me and a Truther: if you have a link to to the tapes, please give it to me. If the link shows what you say it shows, I will be convinced and say so.

x-post: was disinclined to post this, because it comes from a bullshit site, but here is a famous example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

was gonna explain why that's retarded
can't be bothered
IT'S SO RETARDED

Pretty sure most of 9/11 was foretold on film here, backwards, beginning around the 3:00 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhSAPBKGhLE&feature=related

TWU: first result http://lmgtfy.com/?q=united+93+cockpit+transcript

Al Qaeda doesn't even have an Air Force.

..or does it?

The latter moments of the tapes have not been released to the public, although the earlier moments, including the hijackers' announcements to passengers, have been. Transcripts have been released from the Moussaoui trial: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/moussaoui/flight93tape.html .

The full tapes were played in court. Here's the relevant section, my bolding:

0958:
"[Unintelligible.] (In Arabic:) Let's go, guys. Allah is greatest. Allah is greatest. Oh guys. Allah is greatest."

"Ugh."

"Ugh."

"(In Arabic:) Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh the most gracious."

"Ugh. Ugh."

"Stay back."

"In the cockpit."

"In the cockpit."

"(In Arabic:) They want to get in there. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold."

0959:
"Hold the door."

"Stop him."

"Sit down."

"Sit down."

"Sit down."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) What?"

"(In Arabic:) There are some guys. All those guys."

"Let's get them."

"Sit down."

"(In Arabic:) What?"

"(In Arabic:) What."

"(In Arabic:) What?"

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) What?"

"[Unintelligible.]"

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) Trust in Allah, and in him."

"Sit down."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"Ahh."

"[Unintelligible.]"

1000:
"(In Arabic:) There is nothing."

"(In Arabic:) Is that it? Shall we finish it off?"

"(In Arabic:) No. Not yet."

"(In Arabic:) When they all come, we finish it off."

"(In Arabic:) There is nothing."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"Ahh."

"I'm injured."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"Ahh."

"(In Arabic:) Oh Allah. Oh Allah. Oh gracious."

"In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die."

"(In Arabic:) Up, down. Up, down, in the cockpit."

"(In Arabic:) The cockpit."

"(In Arabic:) Up, down. Saeed, up, down."

"Roll it."

"[Unintelligible.]"

1001:
"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) Is that it? I mean, shall we pull it down?"

"(In Arabic:) Yes, put it in it, and pull it down."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) Saeed."

"Engine."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) Cut off the oxygen."

"(In Arabic:) Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen. Cut off the oxygen."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"[Unintelligible.]"

"(In Arabic:) Up, down. Up, down.

"(In Arabic:) What?

"(In Arabic:) Up, down.

"Ahh."

"Ahh."

"[Unintelligible.]"

"Ahh."

"Shut them off."

1002:
"Shut them off."

"Go."

"Go."

"Move."

"Move."

"Turn it up."

"(In Arabic:) Down, down."

"(In Arabic:) Pull it down. Pull it down."

"Down. Push, push, push, push, push."

"(In Arabic:) Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"(In Arabic:) Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"(In Arabic:) Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"[Unintelligible.]"

1003:
"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"No."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest."

It's insane to me that we're having this discussion in 2010.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpaqI11RoT4&feature=related

yeah well 9/11 was foretold in 1995 by a collectible card game so that's all the proof i need, the rest is just details

http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/terrorist_nuke.jpg http://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/pentagon.jpg

do you see?????

from what i understand, 9/11 was foretold by an attack on the w.t.c. in 1993 [via notorious b.i.g.]

laurie anderson was in on it, too, iirc

so weird that ilx is talking about the truth behind 9/11 and biggie at the same time

hmm

makes u think

Did biggie smalls predict 9/11?
i was listening to one of biggies songs today. The song was called 'juicy' and was recorded in 1994. In one verse biggie raps as follows:

'it's time to get paid, blow up like the world trade'.

The question is why would he talk about the world trade centre blowing up 11 years before it actually did and how did he know? Weird stuff.

* 2 years ago

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
it could be but they tried to blow it up in 93 as well,

"Go."

"Go."

"Move."

"Move."

"Turn it up."

"(In Arabic:) Down, down."

"(In Arabic:) Pull it down. Pull it down."

"Down. Push, push, push, push, push."

"(In Arabic:) Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"(In Arabic:) Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"(In Arabic:) Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me."

"[Unintelligible.]"

1003:
"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

"(In Arabic:) Allah is the greatest."

We've changed a lot and then some, some
You know that we have always been "(In Arabic:) Down, down."

y'all ready for this?

still waitin on the autotuned version

"Go."

"Go."

"Move."

"Move."

"Turn it up."

Sounds like a P. Diddy song.

teenpoppers would have a field day analyzing those lyrics

9/11 conspiracy theories are really the fucking lowest, stupidest shit.

― Mormons come out of the sky and they stand there (Abbbottt), Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:10 AM (14 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hey everybody I've been more or less off ilx for about a week while I worked but I just wanted to say Abbott otm

fuckin h8 all truthers, would support a law that stripped the degree from any degree-holding moron who becomes a truther, they are no better than autism deniers imo

you'll have to settle for a

false prophets talk in metaphors (CaptainLorax) has been temporarily banned. a necessary timeout

you fascists can't handle THE TROOF so you SILENCE IT akdjf;lakjd;lkfja;lskdjf;lakjdl;fkja;ldkfja;lkdjfl;akdjfm,m.,xmcv,mv,mn,mnvc.,mnc.,vn

Hi there.

I note the following things:

1. The actual cockpit tapes have not been released. I do not know why.

2. The transcription on the Smoking Gun has a stamp on it marked "Government Exhibit". I infer that it was prepared by US attorneys as a trial document made with the intention of convincing a jury to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to death, and is by no means an official transcript made by the Court. As it was not offered on the question of Moussaoui's guilt or innocence, the rules of evidence as to the transcript or tape's use are not the same as if it had been. At any rate, the validity of the document and the accuracy of its translation does not appear to have been at issue in trial -- I suspect that it would have been had Moussaoui's attorneys been less handicapped by their client's guilty plea and wishes to die a martyr.

3. I find the words "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down" (which may not have been uttered in English -- there is no transcript of the Arabic) about as clear and unambiguous in meaning as "Let him have it, Chris!" (if you don't get that reference, who are you to call me a retard?)

4. There was clear evidence of US attorney misconduct in the preparation for this trial, including the coaching of witnesses, which nearly lead to the dismissal of the government case.

So: I am not convinced of the validity of the transcript, nor that as written it clearly indicates the hijackers brought the plane down. But you expected that.

I think an inability to see the difference between insistence that all of 9/11 was a big conspiracy in the face of gobs of logic and scientific and physical evidence to the contrary -- and my disbelief in the "Let's Roll" story (which relies far less on physical evidence and far more on controllable and containable narrative by dudes whose jobs it is to control and contain narrative) indicates some problems with thinking straight, actually. You don't have to agree with my conclusion -- which is by no means a rock solid belief or conviction -- to see that we are talking about two different types of disbelief here.

3. I find the words "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down" (which may not have been uttered in English -- there is no transcript of the Arabic) about as clear and unambiguous in meaning as "Let him have it, Chris!" (if you don't get that reference, who are you to call me a retard?)

What is it? A movie or something?

it's a british murder case of the 1950s

or something

Naw, I was just trying to troll a troll. I got Google.

Although I will say that I don't see the controversy in that particular murder case. "Let him have it, Chris" obviously means "shoot him, Chris".

i saw a film about it (not 'let him have it chris', the other one) but can't remember

n e ways, i don't think flight 93 was shot down

are you suggesting that the transcript misrepresented the tape in order to, what, insert ambiguous phrases into the mouths of the terrorists? huh?

I'm certainly not a truther but I do find the inability of our domestic military aircraft (that we pay ridiculous amounts of money so as to protect us at a moment's notice) to engage known hijacked planes headed toward (1) our nation's capitol and (2) scoring a direct hit on our center of military defense and security within an hour of 2 planes hitting the WTC either:

(a) a catastrophic bureaucratic failure of tragic allegorical importance
(b) some sort of cover-up on flight 93 may have occurred

flight recorders also record flight data. analysis of that data would likely corroborate the "meaning" of the words spoken in the cockpit. ffs.

we pay ridiculous amounts of money so as to protect us at a moment's notice

You fail to understand that the real purpose of all that money in the military is to pay military contractors to supply the armed forces with outlandish weapons designed by people who wished they could design Transformer toys. Not much of the money goes to the actual defense of the country.

it is always kind of funny to me to watch lawyers argue with non-lawyers; it's almost like watching people yelling at each other in completely different languages

I am not sure I believe TWU's hypothesis but I see the logic in it.

"are you suggesting that the transcript misrepresented the tape in order to, what, insert ambiguous phrases into the mouths of the terrorists? huh?"

It's easier to nudge evidence in a misleading direction than just make the stuff up completely. It's also easy to choose what aspects of a confusing situation you should emphasize in order to best argue your case -- if you've ever read subtitles of a crowd scene in a language you understand, you'll know what I mean.

"flight recorders also record flight data. analysis of that data would likely corroborate the "meaning" of the words spoken in the cockpit. ffs."

You say "ffs" as if that had been done, and the results made public.

1. The actual cockpit tapes have not been released. I do not know why.

Yes, you do.

So: I am not convinced of the validity of the transcript, nor that as written it clearly indicates the hijackers brought the plane down. But you expected that.

Well, yes, because as a Truther loon nothing less than a flux-capacitor equipped DeLorean is going to convince you of anything.

(a) a catastrophic bureaucratic failure of tragic allegorical importance

Well, yeah. Actually sitting down and working your way through what happened at what times on that day makes it clear that nobody was in a position to order anything to shoot anything else down until well after it was all over.

y'know maybe there might be a legitimate government / nat'l security interest in keeping an audio recording of a successful terrorist attack against the US from being publicly released

but otoh government denies knowledge, the truth is out there, etc.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/ua93_instruments1.png

Kind of want to point out that the government having a legitimate reason for withholding an audio recording of a successful terrorist attack does not de facto mean that the official released story is exactly what happened (see: Pat Tillman) but that's probably putting more effort into this argument than I actually feel.

I think it's more likely than unlikely that the official story is mostly correct but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there were inconvenient details left out.

Hey, look at that bottom altitude graph and look at what happens at 9:55, right after the word's "Let's roll" were allegedly said by Todd Beamer. And look at what happens between 9:59 and the end of recorded flight data: "Up, down, up, down."

i agree, dan -- tho i was really just reacting to the feigned cluelessness of "it's never been released, i don't know why" upthread

Oh, and the lighter line on the same portion of the graph is labeled "computed airspeed." jftr

HI DERE: I've been putting more effort than I feel into this the whole time (and I have not been putting much effort in at all) but yeah, I think you get my argument more than the "SHUT UP, TRUTHER FREAK!! YOU'LL BE TALKING ABOUT AREA 51 NEXT!!!" crowd do.

Hey, Phil D. -- no one on a government payroll would have the brains to make sure the transcripts of the recordings matched the data -- that would take the brilliance of, I dunno, a highly paid military intelligence expert or government lawyer or something!!!

I am only saying to the folks who think I am a retard to consider that this is a very different kind of evidence than the evidence involved in the "carbombs!!! plastic explosives!!!" nonsense.

haha ok i'm off this thread -- the common tropes of conspiracy theory cannot be engaged in rational debate, ever.

Oh, brother.

It doesn't matter if the transcript matches the flight data. The fact that it does is a bonus. What matters is that the behavior described by the FDR is not what happens after a jetliner gets shot down by a missile. For comparison, see KAL 007.

But go ahead -- tell me which point on that FDR data shows when the missile hits.

haha ok i'm off this thread -- the common tropes of conspiracy theory cannot be engaged in rational debate, ever.

― tangelo amour (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:26 PM (42 seconds ago) Bookmark

I bet Elmo knows something we don't and that is why he's leaving.

Here's what flight data looks like for a jetliner that we 100% absolutely know was shot down by missiles from fighter planes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007_flight_data.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007_flight_data.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007_flight_data.jpg

i don't know if a it's ridiculous to try to clarify this point caveat is necessary at this stage, but, just fyi, to support the theory that ones ability to refute arguments, criticise in general or drop the R-bomb is dependent on one's familiarity with nineteen fifties british jurisprudence, the derek bentley case is summarised here. apparently the intentional meaning of 'let him have it' was 'give him the gun', as there was a guy trying to retrieve the weapon.

but yeah back to FFS

i don't want to blow your mind, but fighter planes didn't do that

Anyway, yeah, this: The common tropes of conspiracy theory cannot be engaged in rational debate, ever.

It's easy to sit there, look at the available evidence and repeatedly stroke your beard and say, "Hmmmmm . . . I'm not convinced." So, tell everyone here your parameters for proof, then present your own damned evidence. Or, be another Captain Lorax and, when asked repeatedly to outline your own version of events, throw chaff in the air.

Here is the difference between me and a Truther: if you have a link to to the tapes, please give it to me. If the link shows what you say it shows, I will be convinced and say so.
Here is the difference between me and a Truther: if you have a link to to the tapes, please give it to me. If the link shows what you say it shows, I will be convinced and say so.
Here is the difference between me and a Truther: if you have a link to to the tapes, please give it to me. If the link shows what you say it shows, I will be convinced and say so.

pro tip: substitute "tapes" with "birth certificate"

elmo 100% otm

So, a couple of reasons that's a terrible analogy/argument:

1. We do actually have Obama's birth certificate.
2. In the wake of the revelations about Pat Tillman, I don't see how it can beyond the pale or borderline crazy to assume there is more to the story of what happened to that plane than what we know.

Basically, the problem is this:

1. Y'all are starting from a position that I am absolutely convinced of the truth of what I say I think happened (which is not so) and that I feel a need to convince you all of the TRUTH of what I say (which is not so).

2. Occam's Razor works super well with physical evidence, less well with language, and much less well in the face of non-physical (including graphic and auditory) evidence presented by people whose jobs it is to control and contain narratives. The latter is what we are dealing with here.

3. I think the "Let's Roll" story is bullshit, and would be convinced otherwise if a tape of the conversation between Todd Beamer and Lisa Jefferson were released.

4. I think it's very possible -- 51% or so, as opposed to my near-certainty that "Let's Roll" is nonsense -- that Flight 93 was shot down by US troops. An independent examination of all physical and documentary evidence -- by someone who knows something about forgery and falsification -- would convince me otherwise. I am aware that that is not going to happen. I am not convinced by the KAL data -- you don't care, I know -- because Flight 93 was being flown by amateurs at a much lower height.

5. I am not as interested in convincing folks that my suspicions are correct as I am in knowing why they are dismissed angrily as retarded. The existence of WMD was a bigger lie requiring more co-ordination and at least as much falsification and deception.

x-post: Thank you, HI DERE.

I think one can believe it, but one can't assume it. That's question-begging: "All this stuff COULD be incorrect, therefore it is, and the real story is something else."

that was an xp to Dan.

If the "Let's Roll" story is bullshit, then ... so what?

what would that change, if there were conclusive truth that it is bullshit?

It changes EVERYTHING.

I mean sure, there were other calls from passengers and flight attendants to other parties describing a plan to try to enter the cockpit, but if Todd Beamer did not say "Let's roll" then everything is a lie.

if he comes back from the dead and says it tho then everything's cool right

Flight 93 was shot down by US troops

in the absence of any positive evidence, even inconclusive evidence, to support this theory, i do not think this is a reasonable alternative to the official story

No aerosmith, it's too late, no backsies for zombie Todd.

The existence of WMD was a bigger lie requiring more co-ordination and at least as much falsification and deception.

The WMD deception was mainly a matter of cherry-picking the intelligence, so as to gin up a case for a war policy that had already been decided upon. Once the war was started, it didn't really matter if the story held up; and sure enough, the story fell through in the face of massive evidence against it. No one believes it any more.

I can't say the 911 "deception" has exactly fallen apart in the face of massive evidence to the contrary. Maybe because it doesn't exist?

elmo have you considered this

Bermuda's proximity to the United States has made it the site of past summit conferences between British Prime Ministers and U.S. Presidents + Bermuda triangle + global warming = heat makes things expand = triangle gets bigger

then you factor in that British kid who Congress just voted off the island

it's not hard to connect the dots

(btw natch I think there's stuff about this story we don't know, that's obv., I also don't think it's some Wow Secret Plot Element About Which We Know Zero - probably more like, you know what, people don't really need to know exactly how this scary thing got done. there's a diff conversation about that to be had, but it isn't "David Copperfield SB'd Flight 93")

I'm not saying someone's hiding something, but I think we know what really happened to Flight 93:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2010/07/500x_yardplane1.jpg

Ha! that's that solved.
What's next?

dan, my birth-certificate analogy isn't perfect but i think it applies here because:

a) conspiracy theory *always* places the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser

b) the fact that obama's birth certificate is public has had no effect on the opinion of committed birthers. any evidence contradicting a conspiracy theory is automatically viewed as suspect; the goalposts are constantly in motion.

& the side effect of (b) is that the conspiracy appears to expand to account for all the 'false' evidence

"you don't know how deep this goes, maaan" etc

what's the point of the conspiracy? either a) officials don't want the american people to know the military killed civilians to save washington targets? and then b) fostered a heroic story to cover it up and 'sanctify' the event to the public? complete with a bonus, vaguely pro-war "let's roll" soundbite? there's a motives-to-ends mismatch here.

apart from what i said yesterday (about conspiracies seeking an illusion of order and power in what is essentially just a clusterfuck -- "did happen" does not mean "must have happened, because x") i'm really resistant to conspiratorial thinking because, really, the exercise of power is basically not conspiratorial at all. it's out in the open! hiding it would be a waste of effort. the world is not run in secret, it's run by mechanisms so boring nobody considers them to be a problem.

conspiracies seeking an illusion of order and power in what is essentially just a clusterfuck

this is exactly where i am coming from fwiw

in the absence of any positive evidence, even inconclusive evidence, to support this theory, i do not think this is a reasonable alternative to the official story

just for the record, I don't think military planes shot down United 93

I do think it's plausible that the heroic passenger charge could have been fabricated as a propaganda exercise to rally the US around a symbol of its fading national identity and guide public opinion down the road of supporting the Iraq invasion but no evidence to support/refute that is ever going to surface, so it's mostly an academic "don't forget to be at least a little wary of your government" argument.

Don't you see? They only want you to think it's a clusterfuck!

dan, i don't really think the "let's roll" story is totally legit either -- at very least, totally blown out of proportion -- but for me, that doubt doesn't provide any substance to an alternate theory of how the plane crashed.

saying that only an independent investigation conducted to look for falsified evidence can convince you that the plane wasn't shot down... that's just crazypants, imho.

Seems to me that the first most reasonable alternate theory to "passengers attempt to retake cockpit, hijackers ditch plane in PA" is "Flight 93 hijack crew had 4 guys instead of 5, and had the least competent pilots among the bunch, and done fucked up flying too low while trying to navigate by sight." To posit that "shot down by military jets" is not only the next most reasonable theory, but leads the "passengers" scenario 51-49, is just . . . I don't even know what it is. There's literally no evidence to support it.

xp As far as "Let's roll" goes, my understanding is that there was a less jingoistic/"let's kick their asses!" interpretation, which is that what he said was "let's roll it," i.e. the food or drink cart, which they were trying to batter their way into the cockpit with. Either way, who cares? It literally has no bearing on what actually transpired.

yeah but all I'm really saying is that I think people are overfocusing on TWU's hypothesis (which he readily admits he can't back up!) to the point where the legitimate question of "what really happened?" is getting glossed over

and yes, it's "legitimate" only in the context of examining how much of the story is propaganda and in satisfying a morbid sense of curiosity

If the "Let's Roll" story is bullshit, then ... so what?

It wipes this song from existence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtM_1BoqxWc

he was actually saying "let's troll!" - referring to what he then did, i.e., landed the plane, after which he convinced everybody to hide out in the woods to make everybody else think the plane had been hijacked - he then phoned this idea in to the state dept and they lol'd and said "no wait we will blow up the bldg and say u did it this is gonna be great" and then they all lol'd

David Copperfield SB'd Flight 93
XD

what he said was "let's roll it"

one last spliff eh

this thread just brought me massive LOLs, though I'm not sure it's what CaptainLorax intended. He reminds me of what I was like at 24--"I've got some stuff you should read", paste link, c/p text, get challenged by someone who actually has knowledge of the topic, accuse them of having an agenda or just flat out don't answer the point.

haha i think it's part of the initiation process for when you first hook up to the internet

man what would Lorax have done before the Internet.

he'd have to leave the house for his propaganda. and get back to people

I was befuddled by how he wouldn't ever argue or talk about what his position actually was. Just "whatever, here's more links."

I was a bit disappointed at the lack of some cinematic and uber-prophetic screed about how we are all lost sheep and that doom awaits those of us who further the lie.

Maybe the towers are still there!

― Matt Armstrong, Monday, September 13, 2010 11:59 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

^^^^^^ caused irl LOLs btw

I'll say the exact same thing I said on the other 9/11 conspiracy thread. I don't understand why 9/11 conspiracy activists are so hung up on controlled demolitions, remote controlled airplanes, and shootdowns when there is FAR more and better documented 9/11 conspiracy involving Arab terrorists, elements of the intelligence community, international drug/money launderers, and political interference with the Treasury Department's investigation into terrorist financing.

Truthers are like the JFK guys who won't stop shouting about the Grassy Knoll. The Grassy Knoll (and building 7, United 93, blah, blah) are entirely irrelevant. What's important are the macro-level power shifts that occur behind the scenes and who benefits and loses from these watershed events.

You don't need to prove a conspiracy. It's already been done for you with a conspiracy of hijackers with ambiguously troubling sources of aid and funding and an Administration that's so cynical that they thought they could get away with having Henry Kissinger chair the 9/11 investigation.

OTM

But that's their conspiracy! What about my conspiracy?! I want a conspiracy, too! No fair!

>:(

The Pat Tillman "conspiracy" is kind of an argument against conspiracies though. That was a much smaller conspiracy and it was exposed.

The Pat Tillman "conspiracy" is kind of an argument against conspiracies though. That was a much smaller conspiracy and it was exposed.

Agreed. If anything, the traditional "smoke filled room" shadowy conspiracy is far more difficult to pull off now. For every dubious stock transaction, Photoshopped picture, or mysterious death there's dozens (if not more) professional/amateur investigators out there uncovering it. I'm just not sure if anyone willfully ignorant is willing to listen...

http://blastr.com/assets_c/2009/07/Lorax-thumb-450x343-21497.jpg

I started this conspiracy shit...and this tha mothafuckin' thanks I get?

What about my conspiracy?! I want a conspiracy, too! No fair!

no problem. please pick one and only one

so glad Mahmoud "Members Only!" Ahmedinajad is a truther

Watch this to decide if you are interested in learning about 9/11 conspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpNeWU8UewE
(I skipped the introduction in part 1. You can watch it if you want to learn about the importance of scientific papers)

If you are still interested in learning about 9/11 conspiracy watch parts 3-8 as well. If you want to discuss something Dr. Steven Jones mentions then please tell me what it is. I may have researched it already (and know how to address your issue)

I you are still interested I will supply some big points not mentioned in this video over the course of the next week (given that I have time). I'll try to be concise and to the point with whatever new stuff I post to this thread (when I first posted here I was very new to 9/11 conspiracy theory). I won't post about unconfirmed cases of molten metal or active thermitic material. The debate over thermitic materials is at a standstill until someone replicates the experiments from this paper:

“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen

Prior to the paper the best dust analysis way back in 2002. However there wasn't any search for explosives ¹

does he explain how jesus got to america? was it like this?

He explains your mom in great detail

i already know she's a mossad agent

I will not have any posts about jews and 9/11

Yeah, everybody knows it was the lizard people that done it.

Does that make me 3x the Charlie Sheen Charlie Sheen is?

― dean ge, Sunday, July 1, 2007 9:52 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark

what did dean know/when did he know it

captainlorax, instead of poking holes in the accepted story, I'd be interested to hear you map out a long and detailed story that explains what happened.

you can make it up - it doesn't even have to be what you really believe. but it has to include:

a. what really happened and how?
b. why did it happen like that? what was the purpose and how does that match the events that took place? for example, if it was to attack iraq, how come most of the people involved weren't from iraq? what group had the motive and why was this the single best conspiracy for their particular motive?
c. how did they manage to create such a vast conspiracy, which would involve so many people, without any leaks? wouldn't there be, at least somewhere along the way, someone opposed to this? were they killed?

― iatee, Monday, September 13, 2010 6:30 PM (5 months ago) Bookmark

this is really useful and well-put

still waiting on that, lorax

i need to memorize this question for every truther i ever meet

"By blowing out the corners of the core at the right time and thrusting 75th beam flooring sharply westward ejecting the flooring and MER perimeter, global release of the upper portion of WTC2 was artificially initiated." - MajorTom, link

"Ejection levels, rip lines, location of all large falling pieces from the initiation zone, ripping out of the corner beam flooring, rip and spinning of the north corner MER piece....

no more mystery. West wall activity documented.

Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon. Haunting and supernatural activity remain the only other possibilities outside of demolition." -MajorTom, link

----------------

Since it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuff I've been reading up on I instead offer two links in which demolition is proven. You gotta be smart to understand the greek in the forums I read but I believe it's better for yall to get your information straight from the source.

someone must disprove Haunting and supernatural activity

still waiting on that, lorax

― iatee, Monday, February 28, 2011 6:42 PM (3 weeks ago)

a. The World Trade Center buildings were subject to controlled demolition. How? A lot of quick *booms* really high up in the towers that went off simultaneously - cutting all the core columns (or connections) necessary to initiate the collapse (I've read 15-30 but I haven't kept up with these estimates). People (mainly the jref debunker posse) are quick to say that you would hear a crazy loud **BANG** but that is just guessing because I haven't seen anyone do the math to find out if core explosions 1200 ft up would be that loud on video footage filmed from point (x) aiming at point (z).

Once the collapse started more charges/bombs could be detonated as necessary to make sure the collapse was "on track" - the sound of any additional explosions would be disguised by the collapse itself. The perpetrators that demoed the buildings went to great lengths of disguising the attack; they spent as much time, or more, planning reaction to public opinion as they did planning the very sophisticated event itself.

b. Why? The motive depends on what group is responsible for the attack and I do not claim to know this information. At the core of the issue of MIHOP or LIHOP is the implied... WHO made it (MIHOP) or WHO let it happen (LIHOP) and that is still a bit foggy. To some it's the MIC, the government, the NWO, the illuminati, Bilderbergs, the Mossad, PNAC and AIPAC, the banksters and perhaps all of the above and more. It's not that hard to think of motives. The government's motive may have been peak oil/Middle East control and legislation that would be easily passed in the wake of 9/11.

c. I already answered this question up thread. Again, there isn't as many perpetrators needed as your imagination suggests. I'm not so interested in the who and why because I prefer the physical discrepancies/proof in the how. The public has been misled and/or lied to by members of NIST, the 9/11 Commission, a gaggle of "professors", engineers and experts and a gaggle of people in mainstream media (many of whom don't know better). But that doesn't mean that these liars are the perpetrators of MIHOP or LIHOP. As for how many perpetrators there were I might as well just link you to this article again.

I think the director's cut of Loose Change had something about the control demo. I could be wrong though.

Since it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuffSince it's difficult to regurgitate all the science stuff

I'm not so interested in the who and why because I prefer the physical discrepancies/proof in the how.

the how doesn't matter unless there's a who and a why. nobody on ilx cares about the physics. nobody. you can post 1000 more videos about scientific discrepancies and nobody will continue to care. until there's a who and a why, we're all more than willing to take the how 100% for granted.

Oh man I had a truther fight with a beloved former professor of mine (also former art rock guy) who is now a truther. At least he didn't have any pretense of pretending to be a materials engineer & physicist like some 9/11 conspiracy ppl do, but it still broke my foolish little heart. He kept saying stuff like "so you TRUST everything the government says?" OTOH this guy did let me pass the class w/an A by making a pretend magazine called "Rock and Roles" that was mostly funny drawings of Lenny Kravitz making o/guitar faces so maybe clues of being not the most intellectually rigorous person were there all along.

The truther fight took place on facebook; I consider it a personal facebook nadir.

xppp to Dayo

This link is just for you dayo. I stopped listening to this guy's video because his science in part 4 is weaksauce, but maybe this dude has more of an urban flavor and you'll digest his stuff better than the Dr. Steven Jones youtube and my 911freeforum links.

why does it matter that he has an urban flavor

captainlorax are you telling me you have personally tasted this guy's urban flavor

I watched parts 1 and 2. where is the footage of him personally placing the demolition charges before sept. 11th

I think your problem is that you need this video proof of people placing explosives before you'll even care about proof of explosives in the explosion. There's tons of bright minds going over all the 9/11 physical and video evidence very thoroughly. These people are interested in the how. They are continually disproving natural collapse (of fire/plane/gravity) thus proving something else of grave importance caused the buildings to collapse. So stop trolling and start learning.

The proof is in the how, iatee. If you don't care about the how then you don't care about the proof.

9/11 conspiracy theories are really the fucking lowest, stupidest shit.

― Mormons come out of the sky and they stand there (Abbbottt)

and Abbbottt, I don't think you are capable of holding a good argument about 9/11 because I can't imagine you having ever done any research at all based on your boisterous opinion

I'm not gonna care about the physics behind 9/11 until I am given a reason to care about the physics behind 9/11. you could have some really, really good evidence that the bus I took home today was actually a well-disguised low-flying helicopter but guess what, I'm not gonna care until you can come up with a reason why the bus company decided to arbitrarily spend millions of dollars replacing a bus with a low-flying helicopter. until then it's not a discussion that's worth having!

and sorry - "the NWO, the illuminati, Bilderbergs" is not gonna cut it. that's not an explanation, that's a greatest hits collection of conspiracy theory cliches.

captainlorax, do you understand how the scientific process works? do you understand the purpose of a control experiment? do you have video footage of a real 747 hitting a real skyscraper and the subsequent result, and can you point out to me how the 9/11 footage differs from this real footage that you have?

I have the same footage as you smart guy

captainlorax, do you understand how the scientific process works?

yes.
do you understand how the process of elimination works?

Uh process of elimination is not scientific rigour, dude.

sure, captainlorax - I understand how the process of elimination works, and I understand how one would use the scientific method to show the process of elimination.

could you please show me how you have used the scientific method to arrive at the conclusion that carefully placed demolition charges caused the WTC to fall. thank you.

iatee, why you should care:

because if it wasn't a natural collapse then it was man-made destruction. and if we allow just anybody to go around killing 3000+ people without getting caught then we are reinforcing that kind of behavior. plus we will be somewhat more likely not to have pointless wars in the future because we will try harder to regulate our government so that the agencies work properly with each other (fbi & cia for instance) and so that we don't fuck up by letting big important things (like controlled demolition of the twin towers) go unnoticed. and you should care, iatee, because you want to find and punish all the perpetrators behind 9/11

i don't like to let that shit fly

who are the perpetrators do you think!

dayo, you want me to regurgitate pages and pages of analyses offhand. I might do this, but you do realize that you are asking me to organize all the reliable information on the internet for you - plus I would have to hire some dudes to verify things that have not yet been completely verified

max, I rather not say because I might be trying to get a job with the perpetrators ;)

Walgreen's did it?

*shrug* the burden of proof is on you, captainlorax. if you feel that what you have posted here is adequate proof of your claims, then so be it.

"The towers must fall!"

http://www.livingstonoutloud.com/archives/1_4/images/aliensMtg.jpg

"Next on the agenda: how are we coming along with the Sammy Hagar project, Simmons?"

I'm fairly sure that everyone in this thread agrees that this was "mad-made destruction" cl, we just find it 100000000x easier to believe that it was caused by a group of people who had a very, very clear and logical motive than that it was caused by a vague government/conspiracy group/whatever that does not have a particular motive at all. 'oil' not gonna cut it cause uh, check your gas prices, we're not quite swimming in cheap iraqi oil now.

Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon

Cthulu did 911, I get it now.

we just find it 100000000x easier to believe that it was caused by a group of people who had a very, very clear and logical motive than that it was caused by a vague government/conspiracy group/whatever that does not have a particular motive at all..

OTM

lorax, you just posted a couple videos of the tower falling. We've seen that a million times. What about the videos "proves" that it's a controlled demolition and not the collapse of a building that was hit by a very large airplane? Because the text actually provided on the forums you linked to is devoid of "proof" and filled with the kind of obscure ramblings that you often find in absurd conspiracy theories.

xppp
iatee,

by "man-made destruction" I meant the opposite of what I said here: "They are continually disproving natural collapse (of fire/plane/gravity) thus proving something else of grave importance caused the buildings to collapse."

Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon Conclusion: The building was either demoed or demolished by a powerful demon

― Borads of Candida (Trayce),

well that's how the process of elimination works. we can't rule out the supernatural no matter how much I would like to

I'm not so interested in the who and why because I prefer the physical discrepancies/proof in the how

Classic conspiracy theory mistake IMO. Just like the JFK stuff. Whether there was a lone gunman or a team on the grassy knoll, some dudes in a plane, or an elaborate planned demolition, the key question is still "who was behind this." The crazy rabbit hole of "how" might just be a convenient smokescreen to distract attention away from the more important question of "who."

well that's how the process of elimination works. we can't rule out the supernatural no matter how much I would like to

― U2 the musical by Spiderman (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:51 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

I for one welcome our zoidbergian overlords.

ehh. There are plenty of people interested in the who. I don't care so much at this point. If opening up a reinvestigation means proving there wasn't a "natural collapse" then that's the way to go! Plus I like science/physics stuff.

But if you care more about the lore and less about the science then knock yourself out. Seriously, there is plenty of stuff you could engross yourself in. Here's a complete timeline of 9/11. Personally I would watch a bunch of movies (I haven't seen any truther movies yet, or Zeitgeist, or 2010's award winning Inside Job narrated by Matt Damon (I think it's mostly about the financial crisis but it's online for free for a limited time). There's a few books I would like to read like Operation Dark Heart by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.

But if you care more about the lore and less about the science

O no u didnt.

seuss did 9/11

― buzza, Monday, September 13, 2010

I'm not so interested in the who and why because I prefer the physical discrepancies/proof in the how

Classic conspiracy theory mistake IMO. Just like the JFK stuff. Whether there was a lone gunman or a team on the grassy knoll, some dudes in a plane, or an elaborate planned demolition, the key question is still "who was behind this." The crazy rabbit hole of "how" might just be a convenient smokescreen to distract attention away from the more important question of "who."

― wk

Seems like a limiting case to me. On the other hand there is actually a good chance we'll get a reinvestigation into 9/11 someday. I've never followed any JFK stuff. Just because that's a bust doesn't mean every conspiracy is a bust.

:)

jfk way more plausible as a conspiracy imo. plus way easier to pull off.

also way more entertaining oliver stone movie

the list of conspiracy theories more likely than the 9/11 inside job one is a pretty long list.

it'd be great if 9/11 DID turn out to be a conspiracy, except that it was perpetrated by some group nobody ever would have suspected, like the National Audubon Society or AAA

Toastmasters did 9/11

ummm Inside Job has nothing at all to do with 9/11. at all.

I never said it did

honestly if you guys can't see how there was a controlled explosion in jfk's skull then i think you need to do your research

I never said it did

― U2 the musical by Spiderman (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:20 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

wtf. you said we should watch it to learn about the "lore" behind 9/11.

lorax, since you appear to be a controlled demolition guy, why is it that all the videos from the scene don't have the sounds associated with controlled demolition explosions?

honestly if you guys can't see how there was a controlled explosion in jfk's skull then i think you need to do your research

― wavy g. wavegarten (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:24 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

you're blowing my mind

the government being awful is part of the lore of 9/11

the lorax of 9/11

xp
also extremely competent and able to pull off amazingly complicated, intricate conspiracies without a single person leaking any information about it.

why did rosemary kennedy knock down the towers?

if Lorax is trolling, I'm really disappointed by the laziness of the trolling. Answer some questions, dude! Stir the pot!

disbelief means nothing in the face of proof.

lorax, since you appear to be a controlled demolition guy, why is it that all the videos from the scene don't have the sounds associated with controlled demolition explosions?

― Matt Armstrong

Well no one has yet to get their books out and attempt to render the effect of the structure between a BANG in the center of the core about 1200ft up the tower to a directional microphone at ground level about 100m from the base. I would like to know how low the sound attenuated as well.

I want to hear more about the supernatural angle

Like, was 9/11 a sacrifice to the Liberty Tree?

booming thread

Well no one has yet to get their books out and attempt to render the effect of the structure between a BANG in the center of the core about 1200ft up the tower to a directional microphone at ground level about 100m from the base. I would like to know how low the sound attenuated as well.

― U2 the musical by Spiderman (CaptainLorax), Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:42 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

controlled demo explosions are loud. They would be audible far away, and there'd be a lot of them. How they're muted on the videos we have is something you, as a controlled demo guy, need to explain. It's much more persuasive evidence than nebulous discussions about the speed with which debris exploded out of windows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WroEJFgtbq4&feature=player_detailpage#t=102s

Alright, to stir things up how about we go back in time to when WTC7 caught fire. Nist states that the failure of that building was due to the collapse of a single core column. The temperature needed for that column to collapse would require people continuously shoveling flammable stuff around the column to keep a strong fire there for several hours... why the hell would anyone do that Nist?

is your case that there was a single "BANG" that produced the controlled demolition?

it's pretty much standard belief among truthers that there were explosions in the basement (and that these explosions are suspicious), I guess you're not on board with them?

"Matt Armstrong" is the real conspiracy

dear captainlorax

i fucking love conspiracy theory, srsly, its awesome and i enjoy the sorta thought experiment of it all,esp given that we all know that shittons of stuff (particularly wrt to accepted history) presented as fact have been proved incorrect. however i have never seen any reason to stretch my incredulity wrt the world trade center etc. what is odd to me is that conspiracy theory trades in shocking implausible explanations for actual things - as such, foreign nationals hijacking planes and crashing them into central aspects of american economy totes qualify. why do people on the truther side need to find a even more implausible and ridiculous explanation, given how unimaginable this shit was without resorting to some sort of false flag stuff?

Matt Armstrong, you would only need to listen for one boom. And you would have to consider the type of explosives, sound reduction from the building, any additional sound damping materials that the perps might of added, distance the mic, direction of the mic and the fact that secondary *booms* are camouflaged with the sound of the building collapsing.

/off to bed

I was at a screening of the "final cut" (close to three damn hours if I recall correctly - hire an editor, assholes) of Loo$e Ch@nge a few years back - it somehow snuck into an otherwise pretty decent lineup of politically-minded docs, and was sponsored by a local truther chapter - and I remember the film comparing the physics of 9/11 to the only other example they had to work with of a plane flying into a building - a comparatively tiny plane. Less than convincing, to say the least.

Anyway, when the "discussion period" came afterwards, it consisted entirely of elaborate "right-on"'s and whacked-out middle-aged dudes going on about experimental technologies that not only made no sense, but had no bearing on 9/11 whatsoever. After about 15 minutes or so of this, I decided there should be at least a little dissent, so I got up to the mic and expressed by misgivings with particular aspects of the film, and outlined my general thesis that ass-covering, incompetence and opportunism better explain the behavior of gvmnt types pre- and post-9/11 than any mass complicity in a highly illogical, insanely co-ordinated conspiracy. The hosts' only response was, "Well, we can suggest some other movies you might like better."

Feeling incredibly smug and self-satisfied, I headed back down the theater aisle, went to climb down over a row of chairs to sit back down next to my friends, overextended my leg at an unfortunate angle and promptly split my pants wide open at the crotch.

The end.

have you considered the possibility that you were not the one who split your crotch?

strategically placed, controlled crotch-splitting charges

it all makes sense now...

loved the bit about 2010's award winning Inside Job narrated by Matt Damon (I think it's mostly about the financial crisis but it's online for free for a limited time).

Determining how a building was brought down by watching a movie reminds me of a recent incident in which a UFO nut attempted to prove something about some lights in the night sky by pointing a light meter at his monitor screen.

never say die, lorax

wtf. you said we should watch it to learn about the "lore" behind 9/11.

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:28 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

No he didn't, he just said that it's online and that he hasn't seen it.

but it's called inside job

Peter Jackson has a movie called "The Two Towers." I haven't seen it but it's surely relevant.

Matt Armstrong, you would only need to listen for one boom.

this is a nice sentence

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/5625/tfhatbelieve3sc.jpg

Exclusive 'Last Man Out' Makes Shocking 9/11 Disclosure

Man, I'm sure glad I sat down and read this article by the credible news behemoth "beforeitsnews.com". You've finally convinced me.

the article is an op piece. it's as credible as the dissertations from the 9/11 survivors themselves

Lorax there's a load of boards out there where people want to read this stuff but here i fear it will only bring you derision and that wd be a shame

Before It's News® is a community of individuals who report on what's going on around them, from all around the world.

Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.

ahh, nevermind, you're right. here are some other quality articles from the same site:

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/596/725/Obama_Long_Form_an_Obvious_Fraud_--_Sophomoric.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/79/934/BP_scaring_the_crap_out_of_people:_dispersants_having_laxative_effect_on_Floridians.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/857/276/Bad_News_from_NASA:_Proof_That_Comet_Elenin_Is_Affecting_Earth.html

(xxpost)

the point of the article is relaying witness testimony. either you're interested or you aren't

well i tried

lol. whatever dude, if you think a thing like 'journalistic credibility' doesn't matter, I can't help you (xpost)

lol NV

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/79/934/BP_scaring_the_crap_out_of_people:_dispersants_having_laxative_effect_on_Floridians.html

i will read any piece written by the people who made that story/headline connection, no matter how batshit insane it is

This story is a wake-up call to the citizens of planet Earth.

this reads like a presentation by aquaman at the hall of justice

lol schlump totally. the first paragraph of that article is too amazing for words.

the kind of rigorously interrogated fact that can only be produced by the twin sources of blog posts + smells traced upon the wind

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rick-roepke/25/b28/66

If I had the desire to organize the best 9/11 truth material I'd make a thread where I try to present things formally. I'd try to open a proper forum of discussion here on ILX.

This thread is nothing more than a repository for links I find interesting as I come by them

Posted by Uneekone on Wed Aug 10 19:10LikeDislikeReport SPAM
BRAVO, to all the activists who have dedicated themselves to expose the corruption and deceit from the Demons of our world!
May all the murderous Demons burn in Hell!

Posted by Anonymous on Wed Aug 10 12:44LikeDislikeReport SPAM
all this just to make one world order come in to reality....it all fits....we are like rats in a maze....led where they want us to go....time to think for ourselves...........stop believing all news that is fed to us....look at the agenda behind every thing that happens....

no the point is the forum of discussion on ILX wd be you saying "Contrails done 9/11" and everybody else SBing you and that wd be a loss to the board tbh

xpost lol that reminds me of a review I read of Behold a Pale Horse once

I assume you have an autographed copy of that, Lorax?

of what? I'm still reading the article I posted. It's all stuff I already read about Rodriguez but it is presented in a way that is interesting and easy to read

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TYvlC8IxUPM/S9oJ0cUTn_I/AAAAAAAAFWw/vsNuV2bei7w/s400/NotNecessarilyTheNews.jpg

so anyways, read the article and tell me what you think of its contents/ or do nothing. at least try to stay on topic

"on topic"

-- with pictures!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF9A5ryNbUU

9/11 truther articles from lol websites generally go over like a leprechaun at a strip club...

Posted by Anonymous on Wed Aug 10 12:44LikeDislikeReport SPAM
all this just to make one world order come in to reality....it all fits....we are like rats in a maze....led where they want us to go....time to think for ourselves...........stop believing all news that is fed to us....look at the agenda behind every thing that happens....

profound, chilling indictment of ellipsis here

9/11 truther articles from lol websites generally go unread

your loss not mine

Captain Lorax, just a tip: I usually read articles entirely before posting them on boards, even if everyone on the board I'm posting it to thinks the article is complete garbage.

Just to make it clear, no one on this board is interested and it actually kind of angers some people (maybe not necessarily on this board) to be reminded that this trash exists.