oh and a preliminary, "Thank's for nothing, asshole." to theo47....regrets???? Never!

@50:06, look as Silverstein, the owner of the towers, gives away his true nature, the eyes have it all, always have....

The Obvious Crimp on building 7 should do it for anyone, or any number of simple aspects of physics as it relates to controlled demolitions...

I'm pretty sure the assholes are the people turning the grisly deaths of 3000 people into a fantasy hobby.

how grisley are they to you there theo....grisled enough to close the book on the cause?, ...to disciontinue or muffle any dialouge in the major media, perhaps, "grisly" enough for another clever retort which is simply another version of, "Who the fuck cares what happened, to think it was planned other than by who, and how they have officially spun the shit, is absurd."

Your seething distaste for knowledge and meaning of any substance shines through, with every smug comment made.....at least you are being true to yer own bullshit principle of downvoting anything that provides an alternative viewpoint to the official story of 9-11....

always knew you were a putz, yer true colours are quite uncommon, unfortunately...passive aggressive pussy....or PAP for short.

Yep, I was right.

as i always like to say .... let's just say for a second that all 3 steel buildings DID collapse due to fire (forget the fact that these are, and still remain to be, the only 3 steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire) ... but for argument's sake, for a moment, let's just say that they did.

still with me? good ... ok, here are the FACTS ... so WTC1 was hit first, therefore having more burn time (18 more minutes to be precise). now WTC2 was hit next, but in contrast to WTC1 a large portion of the jet fuel was propelled out of the building due to the angle of impact. moving along to WTC7, which was NOT hit by any planes, but coincidently was owned by the same man ... this building was not raging with fires, yet collapsed 8½ hrs after WTC1.

what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

*anxiously awaits answer*

*anxiously awaiting anarchy

(you are so damn sweet LB, ooozing ombudsman......


What? What were you right about theo47???! Here's yer chance to take another swing at fantastic notions of conspiracy and ineffectual know-nothing hicks!!? Which box, sir/maam, would you put choggie in???
Not a republican, christian or drop-out?? How about redneck?

Forget it. More likely than not, just another question answered with a question, or dialogue avoided altogether, or some other such sophomoric, denial or contortion of meaning......Jesus Loves me, but he can't stand you.....

To benefit a corporate state, ask no questions.

Safe to say, LadyBug, that your conclusions are gross oversimplifications.

Choggie, whatever you might think of me, at least I can express a cogent thought.

And Farhad, you should know better.

Safe to say, LadyBug, that your conclusions are gross oversimplifications.

Wrong.

First of all, there have got to be thousands of variables as to why each building went down - arguing that each building should collapse in the order they were hit is very linear thinking. (Along those same lines, the Towers are inconceivably heavy structures, not Jenga blocks - given that their internal structures weakening is what caused them to fall, of course they're going to fall in on themselves.) I'm reluctant to debate 9/11 kooks point-for-point simply because most points are quite obvious to me (and I usually have better things to do), or they use some sort of logical fallacy to begin with.

Second, you don't get to just throw stones as a scientist - you have to propose alternate theories to explain a phenomena, or otherwise you're proving you're not really that interested in finding out what happened. To say that some of the alternate notions proposed by conspiracy theorists are completely without evidence, even comical, is an understatement.

I repeat, once again, my assertion that conspiracy theorists are much like religious fundamentalists or people with extreme political philosphies in that they START with a belief, then cherry-pick facts to fit their preconceived conclusions. (It's how the right suckered a grieving nation into invading Iraq.)

Science just doesn't work that way, kids. Until you have facts to back up your theories, and conspiracy theorists, by definition, don't - then it's just wish fulfillment. ("Oh my God, I was right all along! The establishment really is run by aliens/commies/fundies/Jews/midgets!")

the 'official story' is actually a conspiracy theory, theo .... it defies laws of physics (take a course on gravity, freefall and momentum), it contradicts footage and eyewitness comments, and expects us to believe that 19 men took over 3 planes with boxcutters and maneuvered them, one in particular, into the most highly guarded air space on this planet.

but let's stay on topic, theo ... please refer back to my questions so we can continue this debate!

I don't necessarily disagree with your point regarding conspiracy theorists about cherry-picking facts to support a predefined belief.

But that just as easily cuts the other way. Looking for an explanation as to how the towers fell and completely convinced that it was caused by the impact of the planes, experts then began to compile facts around that conclusion. They overlooked many of the other facts and failed to explain them because it didn't support their main theory divined from predetermined beliefs. Thus, they left the door open for these questions to be asked, for these alternative facts to be presented, when they failed to take into account the full picture in their investigations and reports.

My point has been (and will continue to be) that exactly what happened that day is not known. I don't think the official reports are right. I don't think every 9/11 conspiracy theory is right. But what I won't do is automatically dismiss any attempt to discover the facts and hide my ignorance behind a supposed "respect for the dead."

aaron, the 9/11 conspiracy people are doing the same sort of thing the global warming deniers are doing - crowning themselves experts above legitimate scientists who actually have "taken a few courses on gravity, freefall and momentum", climate change, what have you - again, to fit their particular set of beliefs.

These are subjects that can be incredibly complex, yet twisted into simple explanations for the simple-minded.

"I repeat, once again, my assertion that conspiracy theorists are much like religious fundamentalists or people with extreme political philosphies in that they START with a belief, then cherry-pick facts to fit their preconceived conclusions.(atheists do the same with a cyclical brand or reasoning....FACTS AREN"T ALL IN ...HELLO!? BEEN BACK FROM THE DEAD THERE BUDDHA ?)"

and everyone repeats, ad infinitum, and the story will be always per.. point of view of the beholder, and filtered......

"But that just as easily cuts the other way."

Thank you, aaronfr , for stating the obvious and reminding the self-indulgent.....

Oh and,...... reduced to name-calling and belligerent accusations....for shame!!!! Ladybug is delicate and sensitive to meaning......

Not quite theo. For one thing, most of the global warming deniers ARE scientists. Even meteorological scientists. They just happen to be getting paid off by Big Oil and the American Enterprise Institute. Furthermore, one of the reasons that "An Inconvenient Truth" has been so successful is because it takes an extremely complex subject and reduces it to simple terms for, as you say, the simple-minded. Just because it's reduced to where most people can understand it, doesn't mean it is factually incorrect.

Also, I'm guessing you didn't actually watch this video. They survey a view scientific studies regarding building freefall and timing. Yes, real scientists, looking at really complex things like floors pancaking on top of each other and weakened internal structures. And sure, you can say that they are cherry-picking a study, but as you said earlier you shouldn't just throw stones you should provide evidence. so I'm challenging you to provide contradictory evidence to explain how a 110-story building that is collapsing floor by floor can do so at near freefall speeds.

Well, that's easy - each floor were wired with explosives, part of the most massive government conspiracy ever, ever.



Still eager to take their side?

No, I don't want "to take their side." However, I do want to continue to point out that the government is directly responsible for creating an environment in which these theories are encouraged to run rampant.

For example:
The contents of the jetliners' black boxes have never been made public.

Records of the alleged calls from the planes have never been produced.

Interviews with air traffic controllers have been destroyed.

The steel from the collapsed World Trade Center buildings was rapidly recycled without forensic examination.
The FBI, by its own admission, has failed to turn up "a single piece of paper" linking the alleged hijackers to the plot.

If people are expected to accept the official story, simple measures such as declassifying this information would go a long way towards lifting the veil of mystery. I will continue to press for an answer that actually satisfies the facts of the day. Until the government begins to release this information, I'm not sure how any rational, thinking person can be convinced one way or the other.

sorry my questions killed your thread, choggie ...

the silence speaks volumes ...

Well, aaron - that, like their reluctance to start (and barely fund) the 9/11 Commission, all stems from a desire to cover their own asses; to deny responsibility for their own incompetence.

Tough to say whether or not it would've happened under a Gore administration; probably, but at least the Clintons hadn't completely taken their eye off the ball of international terrorism.

And Lord knows we would never hear the end of it from the Republicans if it had; as it is, the Bush administration continues to get off very light for the worst attack in the nation's history.

Until I saw Freedom to Fascism, I would never have even given this video the time of day. However, my friend kept getting on me to watch Loose Change so I played it in the background while doing work. After you take an honest look at the situation, the information presented here becomes indisputable. These aren't conspiracy theories anymore--a recent CNN poll with 50,000 participants found that 84% of those surveyed believe the government had a hand in 9/11.

Even if you somehow ignore all the sickening connections and coincidences, the physical evidence presented here is absolutely bulletproof.

It's certainly not "indisputable" or "bulletproof".
And a poll certainly does not make it so.

To paraphrase Mandy Patinkin from The Princess Bride, I do not think those things mean what you think they mean.

What I meant by indisputable and bulletproof is that anyone who watches the video without prejudice would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.

1. They estimated pancaking would take what, 111 seconds? It fell in 10.

2. The concrete was reduced to dust. Pancaked buildings look like this: http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/k/images/carcus.jpg A pile of floors on top each other, not a pile of conveniently sized pieces of metal for clearing.

3. Structural steel melts at 2700 F, jet fuel/open air fires burn at 1200 F max. Thermite (explosives used in demolitions) burns at 4000+ F. They found traces of Thermite on the steel.

4. The core sinks before the floors collapse. The core collapsed at all (it should have been left standing if the floors pancaked around it).

5. All the firefighters/witnesses heard multiple explosions.

6. Almost every sky scraper has had a major fire in its lifetime. Many have sustained full on fires for 20+ hours and none have ever collapsed, the only three in recorded history all collapsed on 9/11 and fell in an identical manner.

7. The WTC was publically owned until Larry Silverstein, a private contractor bought it two months before 9/11 and put out a huge insurance policy with terrorism clause. He collected 7 billion and will be profiting off the memorial.

The list goes on. One is enough, how can you argue against dozens? Like I said--bulletproof.

You conspiracy theorists make me sick. Why don't you stop living in your basement searching the internet for "proof" for your demented theories, just because you think that Bush and the boogie man are out to personally get you. None of your "points" matter because unless you are a subject expert your opinions mean nothing.

Come back when you've done a full structural simulation of the event using scientific models, have written a full 100 page report, or other wise put real effort into your sick theories.

If you watch the video, you'll realize a lot of really smart people have done lots of simulations and prepared 100 page reports backing up everything in this video.

You don't however, have to be a engineer to realize that hot objects in the middle of a city don't get hotter and hotter until they melt...they get colder until they approach the ambient if left alone. So when they find pools of molten steel at the bottom of a building in a fire 1500 degrees colder than what it takes to melt steel, somethings wrong.

I know its hard to believe the government would do this. But open air fires do not turn steel I beams into molten puddles--high temperature explosives do. This is a very simple principle that anyone can understand, no B.S. needed.

This vid has a lot of great information, but comes to some pretty odd conclusions based on that information. All I see is a tragedy played out over and over with people repeatedly seeking a reason for it. It's almost the denial stage of grieving that finding the towers were demolished, rather than official reasons, changes the fact that they are gone. I do think there's a steaming pile in all of this but I doubt that it is in how the buildings collapsed.

This is not directed at aaronfr, but it happens to be the most relevant quote - "However, I do want to continue to point out that the government is directly responsible for creating an environment in which these theories are encouraged to run rampant."

Yes, the bill of rights is a wonderful thing and should remain so. It allows us all the ability to dissent, theorize and ask questions. I am worried that our ability to speak our minds is becoming limited. I would caution people not to get so bogged down in the events of over 5 years ago that we loose sight of the damage being caused today. I may not agree with the conclusions of this video but I firmly believe in the right to question what we are told. I hope we don't loose that.

See, this is what I'm talking about when I referred to y'all being amateur scientists - it isn't necessary for the beams to melt, only weaken enough to no longer support the weight of one of the tallest buildings in the world. I'm absolutely certain your pancake theories don't hold up when referring to a building of that height and weight. Of course things are going to pulverize when dropped from that height with that much pressure.

The cores of the buildings are what were on fire, due to fucking jetliners full of fuel going through them at hundreds of miles an hour. I don't think your other examples of building fires quite set the same precedent. Not even close.

Multiple floors collapsing is going to sound like multiple explosions - duh. And buildings aren't allowed to exist, especially ones as big as the Towers, without being insured.

I didn't copy and paste any of the above from another site - because it's common fucking sense if you have half a brain.

See, this is why I hate debating this stuff at all - because I'm forced to deal with paranoid kooks who will believe anything an amateur will tell them and don't know the first thing about rational thought. Fuck!

I just want to know why I had 45 minutes of warning that tower 7 was going to be coming down, enough so that myself, along with many other volunteers, were on Broadway watching when it came down.

All of them coming down at free-fall speed doesn't help the official story, either, though.

Eh, whatever.

P.s. - we're having a thermite on old steel BBQ barbeque/party soon if anyone's around the NYC area and wants to see what thermite does to steel. We have to get rid of the old BBQ to make room for the new one and figure that thermite works better than anything, as it's old and rusted out, etc. Leave me a message or whatever.

Lastly, in semi-agreement with Theo - "76% of all statistics are made up on the spot."

Isn't it odd that that's probably the most stable statistic you've ever seen? lol. Everyone I know says "76%..."

lol - gotta joke about something - when it comes down to it, the people will rebel against the government not realizing that it was the plutocracy behind the government that was responsible for 9/11...and they, forming the "new" government, will accept the very same deals that the plutocracy offered the "old" government.

Ah, money speaks, apparently.

My recommendation: if you haven't yet, all of you should check out some of Daniel Quinn's books. Fun stuff.

OK, I finally watched this, and my mouth was literally open, aghast at how stupid one has to be to buy any of its assertions. My personal favorite parts were the ones using eyewitness testimony as proof, as if anyone living through the chaos could possibly contextualize what was going on - well, if they heard explosions, it must be from...explosives! Yeah, that's it!

It's now a cliche that conspiracies will surround national tragedies - there are people trying to make Anna Nicole Smith's death into a murder mystery, for Christ's sake - but this is fetishizing death and destruction on a scale unparalleled.

For what I pray will be my final word on this, may I suggest to all of you that there is no precedent for what happened on 9/11 - science is then forced to theorize on some of the more difficult explanations. Making fantastical explanations (all the building were wired with explosives!) for what we don't yet understand is what religion does - and all of you are worshipping at the Temple of 9/11 "Truth".

"What I meant by indisputable and bulletproof is that anyone who watches the video without prejudice would be forced to arrive at the same conclusion.

1. They estimated pancaking would take what, 111 seconds? It fell in 10."

Who are "they"? Did "they" do an accurate model test to see what would happen? It doesn't surprise me that thousands of tons of concrete and steel would accelerate to such speed and go through anything under it.

"2. The concrete was reduced to dust. Pancaked buildings look like this: http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/k/images/carcus.jpg A pile of floors on top each other, not a pile of conveniently sized pieces of metal for clearing."

Good job comparing a skyscraper to a small building. Seriously, do you really think that over 100 floors collapsing onto each other would stack up so nicely? By now you've lost all credibility, and there's really no point continuing, but I'll go on.

"3. Structural steel melts at 2700 F, jet fuel/open air fires burn at 1200 F max."

But it weakens at a much lower temperature. Also, the planes tore through a lot of supports. The comparison of planes to wind that they make in the documentary is laughable. Wind doesn't have such concentrated penetrating force.

"4. The core sinks before the floors collapse. The core collapsed at all (it should have been left standing if the floors pancaked around it)."

It's not like the floors are loosely connected to the core and would just fall around it.

"5. All the firefighters/witnesses heard multiple explosions."

Really? Did they interview ALL the witnesses? And I don't think a person that just went through such a shocking experience is the best person to ask such details. Also, I'm sure a building makes all kinds of noises when it falls apart.

"6. Almost every sky scraper has had a major fire in its lifetime. Many have sustained full on fires for 20+ hours and none have ever collapsed, the only three in recorded history all collapsed on 9/11 and fell in an identical manner."

Not jet fuel fire after being penetrated with a commercial jet.

"7. The WTC was publically owned until Larry Silverstein, a private contractor bought it two months before 9/11 and put out a huge insurance policy with terrorism clause. He collected 7 billion and will be profiting off the memorial."

Uhh... so what? This is a possible motive, but it's not evidence.

"The list goes on. One is enough, how can you argue against dozens?"

Well I just did.

theo - I stood, I watched it happen.

I watched as my friends, as my clients, as my coworkers, died.

I don't "buy assertions" but I do know what happened. For the next two weeks after it happened, I tried to supply as many of the volunteers, military, and contractors with supplies, as I could.

But, on the first day I was there - on September 11 - there was no reason for WTC 7 to fall - other buildings that were closer - others that had literally had tons of wreckage fall on them, and burn, did not fall.

One of them, we used as a makeshift NYPD station, even - one that was closer than WTC 7. Noone - not the NYPD, not the FDNY, expected it to fall, even though it was burning for the better part of one week after, in certain parts - but WTC7 fell the same day, and I was in there an hour before it did fall. I didn't see any fires, and I had to walk through the basement and first floors of it to try to shut the power off.

I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't. I know that WTC7 was not brought down by fire alone, and I know that it takes weeks to plant explosives for demolition - just to plant them. To plan where those explosives should be placed takes even longer. I learned that from having been in the U.S. Army, myself.

As that is the case, and any fires could not have brought down WTC7, as I was in it, prior, well then, any explosives in that building must have been planted prior to 9/11.

And that means that someone destroyed it, intentionally.

And that's why I'm interested - no "conspiracy" involved.

p.s. - SaNdMaN: About your first response - how would the concrete and steel have anything to accelerate from, except gravity? Buildings are built to withstand the force of gravity, and anything that would produce acceleration downwards, besides gravity, would have to be either something pushing down from the top, or something removing the lower structure from the falling upper structure, so that the upper structure did not have any resistance to gravity below it, in order to fall at free-fall speed.

I don't know what could push the tops of the WTC buildings down on the lower structure with enough force to cause them to also fall at free-fall speed, but I think explosives MIGHT be able to push the lower structure out of the way, with accurate timing of course, for the building to fall that fast.

That's slightly more logical, to me, than the report of each floor pancaking on the one below it, especially since the "pancaking" report does not take the core into consideration, and, as the recently released blueprints of the North Tower show, the core was not "free standing" as the WTC Commission report suggested - they were, in fact, supported by the lower levels and welded/supported with concrete to the foundation.

Sorry, but being there doesn't make your suspicions any more correct.
In fact, it could be argued that it clouds your perceptions.

Without question, any scientific theory as to why WTC7 fell (and it isn't exactly clear why yet) is infinitely more plausible than the buildings-lined-with-explosives massive conspiracy theories that wouldn't be plausible in the worst work of fiction.

Clouds my perception? I was IN THE BUILDING that day - you probably just watched it on TV, but for some reason you think that what you've been told, from the TV, is more accurate than someone who walked through the building on the day it fell?

Wow.....I'm speechless.

If only you were.

I'm perceiving that I'm talking to a bunch of brainless idiots right now - are you going to tell me my perceptions are wrong, even though I'M RIGHT HERE TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW?!?

I have a question for you, theo - why do you think that you're right about all of this? I mean, I'm definitely willing to question my own perception on what happened while I was working at Ground Zero for two weeks - I mean, I spent $250/hour and many months at a Cognitive Therapist just talking with him about what went on there, but it seems like you're trying to validate your argument just by the fact that you're arguing it.

Is there a point at which you'll maybe question your own perception, especially since you're not even willing to consider what someone who was there that day is telling you?

You make my point for me -- human beings are fragile things, their memories are unreliable, and their brains often work in mysterious ways to make the intolerable tolerable.

I was horrified watching it, myself - and I was in a high rise 23 stories up in the tallest building in town. People were leaving the building in the actual fear that it was happening everywhere. I'm not pretending my experience was worse than yours - but I certainly would never use emotional distress as an argument for an absurd thesis.

Oh, I'm not claiming that mine was a bad experience - it's not something I want sympathy for or anything. To me, any mention of how I FELT throughout it is irrational - I was entirely in "Hey - I'm former military, and I can help" mode.

One thing I do know, and something you negate in mentioning that "(human) memories are unreliable"(maybe you think that people go to Cognitive Therapists just for help with their memories?) is that I did not go to the Cognitive Therapist for help with my memories - I went there to talk. The whole situation sucked, and I needed someone(besides the guys I ran around Ground Zero with, and the guys with the Salvation Army) to explain my story to.

As for what happened there - well, sure, my memory may be "unreliable" - I'll give you that, but I'm not apt at forgetting things like what I did NOT see - had I been in a building of fire, I would have walked out, or I imagine I probably would have been burned. Thing is - I spent 45 minutes to an hour in WTC7 looking for the power - my friend, Eden, on a Nextel phone talking with the ConEd guys.

Had I seen fire, especially fire hot enough to weaken steel, you know, I probably would not have stayed in there too long. Had I heard the building creak, even, I would have been out of there in a heartbeat.

Instead, I was walking around while my friend was talking with ConEd about where the power switches, etc. were.

It's quite interesting that you'd speak of my emotional state, when I haven't really talked about it, and really don't have many emotional feelings of my many days down there. It was, simply, an experience. I'd liken it to that of a medic down there at the time - you can't really feel anything about it - you don't have time. All you know is that you might be able to help, and so you help - you don't think you're in danger, but you never know, and frankly you don't really care, as you have too much crap to do.

As for my memories, well, heck - question them all you want, sure. That's your prerogative. If you're just going to question the memories that people have of certain events though, well it's my opinion that you end up negating a lot of history.

Sandy, as to your #5 above:
"Really? Did they interview ALL the witnesses? And I don't think a person that just went through such a shocking experience is the best person to ask such details. Also, I'm sure a building makes all kinds of noises when it falls apart."

Please watch this video of only news footage from that day. http://www.videosift.com/video/911-News-Footage-The-Ultimate-Con-trailer

Safe to say, LadyBug, that your conclusions are gross oversimplifications.

...

Second, you don't get to just throw stones as a scientist - you have to propose alternate theories to explain a phenomena, or otherwise you're proving you're not really that interested in finding out what happened. To say that some of the alternate notions proposed by conspiracy theorists are completely without evidence, even comical, is an understatement.

DOPPLER-"None of your "points" matter because unless you are a subject expert your opinions mean nothing."
Faith in god, faith in experts, faith in yer fucking shoe, does common sense, and your OWN ability to process data ever come into play?? Experts are so-called, so paid, so what. Give me enough cash and I'll find you a cabal of experts....fuck em!
ZAMNIGHT-"All I see is a tragedy played out over and over with people repeatedly seeking a reason for it. It's almost the denial stage of grieving that finding the towers were demolished, rather than official reasons, changes the fact that they are gone. I do think there's a steaming pile in all of this but I doubt that it is in how the buildings collapsed."

Denial?? Yes. Denial that the possibility exists, is an idiot's wallow. Why label anyone a conspiracy nut, before facts are in? Does it need that cozy and comfortable "OFFICIAL" stamp to ring true or plausible? A nut in this case is someone that does not want to deal with a dynamic, fluid, and ever-changing world.....there are still folks who believe in the fairy tale of "Oswald, the Lone Gunman"...just as there are still men alive who know the truth about what happened. But the supreme omnipotenece of our wonderful country, has locked the files till 2025, when all who would be held responsible, will have led their lives out in full.
This one may be no different....if enough folks like those here who trust in the spin, the diversion, the "EXPERTS", and the false hope, that this country has a chance in hell at lasting another 100 years, clicking along, business as usual....

Our government did not "DO IT", the government is a tool, just like her peoples, in a game bigger than folks want to believe......Truth being stranger than fiction is predictable, moreso now, as we spiral downward...then up...then down....

Just like Wobal Glorming, humans have everything and nothing to do with it at all......Cyclical Phenom. Theo is as frustrated with folks for not copping to the "FACT" of global warming, but all the "FACTOR" are never addressed by the devout.....its a goddamn religion, with devout, and tithers, just like a Southern Baptist congregation....

Solar-what about the blast furnace called the sun?
What about the natural phenom that produces greenhouse gas?

Humans are a drop in the freekin bucket, and humanity has waaaayyyy more to worry about than what he is doing to the physical world......

Love these earthbound creatures.....so much faith in the phenomenological world...."This ain't MY planet, Monkey Boy!"

SaNdMaN:

Why are you commenting on a movie you haven't even watched? You didn't argue against the dozens of arguments. There are probably almost 50+ reasons why it doesn't make sense you only talked about the 6 or 7 I happened to present. Even so, you didn't resolve anything:

1. "They" is a private group of scientists in the video who ran computer simulations on what a 100 story pancaked building would be like. The result was each floor hitting the next and the collapse proceeding slower as each floor goes. Not at free fall velocity.

2. The point about concrete turning into dust is this: when you drop concrete it shatters, it doesn't EXPLODE into tiny particles of dust. Even if you think that the floors dropping were high enough to turn them into dust, why was there a explosive dust cloud on the first collapsed floor? The concrete should have simply broken into big pieces when falling a mere 10 feet. Also, all 100 floors or each building would have to collapsed at all points simultaneously, and instantly for the collapse to occur. The probability of such things is astronomical.

3. The point of the temperature of the fire isn't that it weakened steel. Lets say you are right that it weakened the steal enough an the building collapsed on its own. How do you explain the presence of molten steel? This right here is enough to tell something is wrong. It doesn't matter if 1000 planes crashed into the tower at the same time--jet fuel does NOT burn hot enough to MELT steel. Therefore if you have 1000 planes full of jet fuel crashing every day into a steel pile they it would never melt.

4. The building supported by an insanely strong metal core designed with a safety factor of 2000%. The pancaking theory states that the floors lost contact with the core and thus dropped on each other, all the way down. This says nothing about the core and explains in no where why the core started falling before the building collapsed, or that it collapsed at all.

6. Actually commercial planes have hit skyscrapers before and they were fine. The WTC was designed to be hit by a fulled fueled 707 and still maintain integrity. They not only designed this in mind, but over designed it by 2000%.


The problem here is that you don't believe the government would do such a thing. So it doesn't matter what evidence you face--we could show you pictures of bombs placed in the WTC and you'd find a way to explain it. We could even have internal cameras going off in conjunction to live feed with demolitions experts pressing the buttons and you still wouldn't believe it. The problem is that you don't realize 9/11 is just a part of whats happening to this country. You don't live in America anymore this country is already to the point of being fascist and the rest of the world is following suit.

I give up - you're all right; the towers were brought down as part of an (almost) impossibly intricate conspiracy, involving the White House, the owner of the Towers, your mother, and your pet dog. The fact that the perpetrators have kept silent on this for going on five years proves they were abducted by aliens and tortured at Area 51 with anal lasers.

It's all so obvious; why didn't I see it before?
Not having to provide credible alternate theories is FUN!
What do you guys want to dream up next?
How about...the Spice Girls killed Princess Diana to keep her from revealing her alternative car fuel made out of packing peanuts?!?

I read some of choggie, and theos reports. I have to say that I do not believe anything any more. Its all bullshit, its a unique way to create a conspiracy. Its easy, as we can see in these comments. You have two people who vehemently argue great points on both sides, yet the truth hides where the falsities of both sides of these arguments meet.

I could care less about conspiracy and what might have happened live my senior year in High School. What I do know is that what i see on the news, any news for that matter is complete and utter bullshit.

I urge you to read these comments again, and see the conflict that is created, its a perfect way to hide the truth. Its insane to think that ones government will tell the truth (SPIN). So what is the real truth, I will probably be dead before its declassified.

valiant effort at sidestepping my questions with your cognitive dissonance, theo ... but i would still like to hear your thoughts on the following:


edit - theo's comment:
“ given that their internal structures weakening is what caused them to fall, of course they're going to fall in on themselves.”
... based on your own post, please tell me how weakening made it possible for 3 steel buildings to symmetrically fall into their own footprint??


what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

"The problem here is that you don't believe the government would do such a thing."

Of course they wouldn't. Whatever they wanted to achieve could've been achieved much more simply and with much less risk. They could've exploded a truck bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel, for example. Or maybe the Washington Bridge. Maybe both. Hell, exploding a bomb in every tunnel and on every bridge to NYC would've been easier than what they did. How do you think the conversation between the accomplices went?

- We need to create panic. How can we do that?
- Let's explode a bomb somewhere in NYC? Maybe 2 or 3 bombs?
- No, we need something much much more complicated.
- Ok, let's take down a couple of planes.
- No, not complicated enough.
- Ok, 4 planes.
- No, still not enough.
- Ok, we'll fly them into the White House, the Pentagon, and the Twin Towers.
- That's still not enough. What if the planes don't damage the towers enough?
- Ok, so let's also secretly plant explosives all over the two tallest skyscrapers in New York without ANYONE figuring it out. Then we'll execute all the parts of the plan at the same time. And we'll just keep our fingers crossed that none of the hundreds of people that will have to be involved in this plan will talk.
- Ah, now THAT's a good plan! This is totally doable and totally necessary!

Seriously imstallar28, put down the crack pipe.

Nice point, SaNdMaN.

And I answered all your accusations, LadyBug.
If you choose to ignore my answers, I can't help you.

they were questions, theo and you did not answer them.

sandman ... as for your comment ... why did they go for something as grandiose as blowing up 2 towers, 4 planes and snuffing out 3000+ lives on sept 11? the psychological factor ...

as quoted from hitler's Mein Kampf: "the principle — which is quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,"

You openly admit that you are ignoring the facts because you don't think the government is capable of it SaNdMaN. Perhaps you should watch this movie first:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Freedom-to-Fascism (trailer)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism (full version)

I believe it will remove any problems you have with the idea of our government acting in this manner. This issue goes beyond the party lines of democrats or republicans--this is about being an American. It's about standing up against an increasingly fascist government which is stripping us of our rights and murdering its own citizens, not for the protection of our country, but for dollars and cents.

If you are really as passionate about the issue as your demeanor suggests, why don't you research it for yourself rather than just making statements based on your preconceived notions?

Geez SandMan.. Is your gov't capable of lying and distorting facts so they could bomb and invade an entire country?

Oookay.

So, you want logical reasons of why to blow up major US landmarks? Ok, how about the WTC were losing money, and also sold to private owner who made billions. Um, the Enron investigation disappeared instantly. Billions were made in trading in the minutes leading up to airplanes impact. (How do you think the CIA / blackops make money to run their operations, if not from drug sales?)

Um, how about this for why not just blow up a bridge... Brother Bush was in charge of security. You don't find that odd? How about looking at some facts. The FBI encourages and supplied nitrogen that went into the 1993 WTC bomb. They knew about that plan and allowed it to happen. (The only reason it didn't work is the idiots parked to far from the support column they were given a map to park next to).

So simple facts seem more reasonable than your elaborate "trust the bizarre official explanations" theory. Did the gov't know about the 1993 attempt ahead of time? yes. Did they let that happen? yes. Did people make billions from the plane attacks? yes. Did ANYONE investigate stock trading leading up to 9/11? No. Did Enron SEC files all go permanently missing? yes (WTC7). Can you think of another "Pearl Harbor" event which would better produce the pro-war, anti-muslim sentiment of 9/11? Would blowing up a bridge, school, etc. give the same effect? Can an images be more TV friendly? Why were people sent back to their offices? Certainly with a second inbound plane, someone warned security at the WTC complex. (Neil Bush must have known about a 2nd plane)


Why did Hilter burn down the Reichstag. (Are you 100% ignorant of history)

To the readers of this page - just my thoughts about 9/11:

- If anybody in government help set 9/11 up, it was not merely to pass legislation - that'd be quite a stupid reason indeed - it'd be too opaque, and so they could argue that by just taking the legislation away, over time. I don't think it's that simple.

- When I look back at 9/11, I remember the financial state of this country. Before 9/11, many economists were saying that the USD was overvalued, and that we should be heading into at least a recession, possibly a depression, just because of how overvalued our money was, alone, in comparison to, for instance, China, which has a much larger labor force. Granted, our economists say that the Yuan is undervalued, but they know that that is because the value of it is set by the Chinese government.

- In my opinion, if 9/11 was not just caused by terrorists, as the official story says, then it was caused to help distract people from the plunge of the stock market right after it, even though it had been going down prior. People who wanted to get out at that time, maybe in favor of entering the Chinese Stock Market or somesuch got out of it and Americans bought the stocks, thinking that the plunge was just an effect of 9/11.

- I think...heck, I know that people in various parts of the government are not much smarter than you or I...but they apply their minds to different scopes of problems. For instance, instead of having a depression that might kill millions of people in the U.S., and eventually around the world, kill 2000 people the way they did on 9/11, in favor of a "stable" market. It convinces the population that central banking and, inherently, civilization, work, even though they really aren't working(just due to principles of Chaos Theory, etc.). They also can sleep at night thinking of themselves as having "solved" a problem, and stopped millions of deaths.

In all actuality though, they didn't solve the problem. They postponed it. Since our currency is no longer backed by a commodity, anything that would shake our faith in our currency will shake the value of the USD, and the stock market in general. Our currency is highly overvalued, especially for the labor force that we actually have. We're either going to have something else like 9/11 happen, to mask that loss of value(so that we don't really notice it as the stock market/value of the USD dropping), or we're going to enter a pretty bad recession/depression.

That means that, as the value of stocks, and of the USD plunge, the price of commodities will go up proportionately.

These are just my own thoughts on it, but I think there was more at play, especially if the government helped in any other way - if it was anything BUT the official story, which it looks like is the case(that the official story doesn't hold water), then it would have to be deeper than JUST policy.

P.s. - for me, a good indicator of the market is the price of the commodity: Silver. As of as recently as December of 2006, it was around $9 per troy ounce, and now it's heading on to $15 per troy ounce. To me, that shows something happening - something deep that we can't directly understand.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth2.html

The conspiracy mindset:

It's not a belief in corrupt leaders. Hell, we all believe in corrupt leaders. It's a belief in a corrupt everybody. It's driving around in a world where every single person you see out of your windshield is utterly bloodthirsty and amoral, all except for you and a few, brave friends. What could make you feel more important than that?

You can see the attraction right away. Most people, to feel special, have to actually do something special. But why not do what these guys do, and just make the rest of the world out to be wretched? Hell, once we've painted everyone else as mindless or murderous, all we have to do to feel superior to them is roll out of bed.

Remember what I said earlier about Dylan Avery and how it was probably just a desire for fame that drove him to do all this? Look at the parallel here. At the heart of all this is that basic human need to feel special somehow, twisted in the most warped and corrosive way imaginable.

In conclusion, the 9/11 Conspiracy Guys aren't evil and they aren't liars. They're merely filling a basic human need, using their imaginations and paranoia to elevate themselves to a level the real world will never elevate them to. Also, they're retarded.

Theo - don't you want to know the truth about what really happened on 9/11? I mean, it's like trying to learn the truth about JFK's assassination. I don't know that many "Conspiracy Guys" want to be "elevated" in any way, and to think that is a very simple thought, indeed. I think they want to know.

I think many people know the downfalls of participating in "civilization" - there are many other forms of organization for humans that work much better. I think people just want all the evidence about why they are participating in this form of human organization. I mean, who proved it, to you, that civilization works better than, for instance, tribalism? Why do you believe that it is as efficient as you believe it to be?

I've been living in a semi-tribe of similarly skilled people for the past 5 years, and I think it's one of the least stressful parts of my life - when I say something that I know to be an acronym for something I work on, or a technical term for something I do, they understand. You don't get that much in modern day civilization. We can walk away from civilization, though - we just need to be told the truth about the events around us.

Bush was right when he said that this is a "war for civilization." Many people are noticing it's pitfalls more and more, and that's why they want to know the truth.

What about people that go around defending nonsensical official government stories. (Iraq has WMDs, Niger is selling yellowcake, Iran is trying to refine weapons grade nuclear material)

In seemingly fact based public discourse, these folks can only run around calling people names, and saying that "everyone has to be in on it". "Surely one person would have come out and announced the government lied and planned it all." It's not like the government is whisking people away to Gitmo just because they have a battery charger, and it's not like the government is monitoring all cell phone calls, emails, banking transactions. Really you'd have to be a nut to believe that.

It's not like 9/11 was done by Saudis and we invaded Iraq. Hey you can't really blame folks who are trying to fill a basic human need of feeling safe, protected, and loved by their government. Where is that tax form again, they're doing such a good job I need to file early.

I don't believe in the "9/11 Truth" garbage for the same reason I don't believe in a God - I like to make decisions based on facts and evidence, not on cherry-picking information and wish fulfillment.

I know what happened that day from using the information at hand, not from deliberately distorting information and postulating incredibly boneheaded theories to fit my preconceived notions.

If any the assertions of the "9/11 Truth Movement" had any real truth to them, I would take their side. They don't, so I haven't. That doesn't make me a stooge for the government - I completely agree this set of Republicans we've had to deal with for the last 6 years are probably the worst we've ever encountered. They're also an incompetent bunch of idiots; one more reason not to believe they could pull off a conspiracy of the magnitude you suggest.

You people are still missing the point that the government could've achieved the same results BY DOING SOMETHING MUCH MORE SIMPLE AND LESS RISKY.

Why would anyone in a government office come out when such secrets(like 9/11 being used as a mask for a recession/depression) are in the public's interest to be kept secret?

It's a whole different scope - I know - but you gotta think about what is larger than just a plane hitting a building - there were a lot of reasons for 9/11, and, even if you read the PNAC paper that everybody mentions, you'll realize that. They call for "something on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to affect the political changes necessary, but that paper doesn't just talk about policy - it talks about context - a context larger than just "let's make these political changes."

Theo - think of the news as the Bible and you start to realize the amount of evidence you actually have for 9/11 following the official story.

I don't necessarily believe anything the "Truthers" tell me, either, but that's because I know they don't think on the same scope as those within the government. If they did, they would see the economic factors involved, not just the political factors.

That last post was choggie-esque in its nonsensicalness, joe. Congrats.

SaNdMaN - what else could the government have done to stop a stock market plunge?

Could they have informed the public about it before it possibly happened? Would that have stopped millions from almost immediately pulling out?

Could they have shut the stock market down for a couple days? Would that have stopped people from pulling their money out right when it opened(and what would be the legal ramifications?)?

Could they have negotiated with ANYONE to get them to not pull their money out, when it's in favor of them to invest in the very much cheaper, and in higher demand Chinese market?

I don't think they could have done many SIMPLE things to solve that problem that soon - it was merely speculation that anything market-wise would happen, which would require them to do something seemingly(to us) drastic.

As for people that "go around defending nonsensical official government stories" - these "defenses" are based - they are based, very much, on a foundation similar to that of the Bible - the news, TV in general. Not many of us(people in general - proportionately, I mean, to the total amount of people in the U.S.) could have been here, in NYC, the day it happened.

Because of that, people who were not here must rely on the news given to them, and the news given to them states many of those things. It also doesn't state many things, but from what it DOES state, you can cherry pick your evidence for an argument(much like the Bible).

I agree with other people that "just because you were there doesn't mean you understand what happened" but, if you were there, you can infer things from what you know did not happen - like my going through WTC7. I can infer that since I did not see a fire, and I left the building on the advice of ConEd who basically told us that, since we could not get into the rooms that might have contained the power shutoffs, etc, that I'm pretty certain I did not leave from a fire. Of course, I did not go through all of WTC7, so my knowledge is cherry-picked from where I did go.

My point, however, is that people who were there can infer things from what they know did NOT happen - those are things that the news does not, can not, report on. Things that did NOT happen ARE as important as what DID happen, though, and most of those things, you could only know from having actually been there.

I posted this video three hours ago:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Screw-Loose-Change-Not-Freakin-Again-Edition

...and the only vote it's received is the one I gave it.

For a bunch of people who claim to want the "truth", you sure seem reluctant to have your preconceptions shattered.

Am sure Dylan Avery was trying to fulfill his need to be loved by making Loose Change. Never mind that they ask questions of an event that now places us in Afghanistan, Iraq with troops exposed and even more sent into the grinder. The people who carried out the attack? According to George Bush he don't care about them.

Am sorry Theo but your consistent line of thinking has been that the Republicans just fucked up and the Democrats will hopefully do a better job. And calling peoples psychological states? Thats just messed up. Mr Theocracy.

I don't know where you're getting that, Farhad - it's pretty much a given now that the Bush administration used the grief over 9/11 to send us to Afghanistan and Iraq, and I've never denied that. They also took their eye off the ball of international terrorism, something Clinton forewarned Bush about personally before he left office.

That makes them incompetent, not a player in some mass conspiracy to bring the Towers down. Did they conspire to get their war in Iraq after that? Absolutely.

I've sad that to you on numerous occasions; I don't know why you can't get that through your head.

I've seen all of the versions of "Screw Loose Change." I find them quite interesting, and at some times, even quite humorous, but I do think, like "Loose Change," the person that made them did so just to be heard - I think of it as "preaching to the choir" - basically, they created it, not actually having been there, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to "who has a more media-based foot to stand on" - of course it's going to be the people who believe the official story - it's "official," and that is, seemingly, enough for them to believe. Having yet another documentary(besides the ones airing on every major media outlet on TV[except Rosie on ABC recently, of course]) that explains the official story, and argues citing those stories - well, that's nothing new, and the thing that bugged me about "Screw Loose Change" is that it really didn't refute any of "Loose Change"'s scientific evidence - it just pointed out where the creators of "Loose Change" screwed up an equation, or a couple facts, or ridiculed them for even questioning the official story. That left a really bad taste with me, as I really want to see the physical and scientific evidence that refutes their side of the argument - I want to see them run the ACTUAL calculations themselves, and post a documentary showing them, not just a "Mystery Science Theatre" on a documentary.

Clearly, crypto, the guy who made "Screw 'Loose Change'" didn't have much more an editing suite on his software, an internet connection to do research, and a bunch of free time. What he could do was refute Loose Change's garbage point-for-point.

To get the "official story" (I love it when conspiracy kooks use quotes), PBS did a fine job on why the Towers fell here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSVfbgtQS4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FphM0H4uVok

Just watched both of the videos you posted. I've seen much of them before, as well as the PBS documentary they came from, but I watched them again, thinking that something new was posted. On first watch(I'll be watching them many more times, of course), I notice that they, like many other documentaries, don't even touch on why the core fell(if indeed it was freestanding, and only connected to the outer girders with trusses as many documentaries say), or why the towers fell at free-fall speeds(i.e. - why they fell at the same speed it would take for a ball falling through air to travel to the ground).

I say "if indeed it(the core) was freestanding," as these have recently been released: North Tower Blueprints

In those blueprints, you can easily note the configuration and amount of the trusses, and that the core was not, in fact, freestanding, and only connected by trusses to the outer girders - it was, as those blueprints show, VERY much connected, by girders, welded similarly to the rest of the building, like they were to each other.

I want to see a video showing the mathematical explanation for why the towers fell so fast. As mentioned at the end of the 9 minute video, "The collapse of the North Tower looked similar to a controlled demolition" - if, indeed, the core and the outer girders were separate, then sure - I'd buy that it could collapse like that...but, just looking at the blueprints, you can see pretty well that the core and the outer girders were not just connected with trusses.

If you can send me a video showing the mathematical explanation for why the towers fell so fast, well, I'll take some more glances at my beliefs.

Oy, vey.

Like I've said to others, you're a fundamentalist where 9/11 is concerned.
A Heaven's Gate'r.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid, you're past the point of no return.
Nothing anyone can tell you or show you will sway your beliefs.

C'mon, man - surely you can look at the blueprints yourself and see that's not the case.

I'm showing you all of the evidence I have and asking for, what should be, a simple chart. I've seen that chart explaining why the WTC could NOT fall that fast(as the buildings are seen to fall in the videos). It's not unreasonable to request a chart of why it WOULD fall that fast.

There - I told you what it would take to sway my beliefs. What would it take for your beliefs to be swayed?

Actually, heck - if you would be willing - calculate height vs. time of fall. Post your chart(and the equations you used to make that chart) on how the towers could fall that fast, yourself, and it'll give people like myself and others in this forum a chart to test against, to see where you're coming from.

The only advice I could give you for such a chart is to not go backwards - don't start with the height, and how long it took to fall in the videos, and make up an equation to fit those two variables. Go with what we know to be fact - the height of one of the WTC buildings, not counting the TV tower if you want to give yourself an advantage, and the time it would take to fall through air alone(easily calculable, and found on many physics pages). Then use any equation that allots for a moderate amount of resistance(again, to give your argument the advantage) and show both on the same chart, in the same excel file even. If what you are saying is true, well it should match up and be able to be seen on that chart, and people here, me included, will have something to verify.

It's really not complex math.

So you're buying a grand conspiracy because you, an ameteur's amateur physicist, can't reconcile the free-fall rate? Now that I know this is how your brain works, I can see how you'd get easily duped.

That's pretty pathetic. If I didn't know better, I'd say you're running out of reasons to keep believing in the conspiracies.

I don't much care, but if I were to guess, I would say that all the kinetic energy added by collapsing floors, fires, heat, etc. accelerated the process and pushed things downward and outward -- I don't know; I'm not a physicist and you're getting your numbers from watching a videotape at a high angle.

Way to go, Einstein.

theo, you have the internet at your disposal .... you should really utilize it a bit more.

Earth's gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago with the Leaning Tower of Pisa ... *smiles*

the more you write, the more respect i'm losing for you ... it's quite sad really.

i'll help you out a bit ....

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time²

or

Time² = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time² = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

"On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast.



But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can't do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long a collapse should [sic] have taken. Would it have taken a minute? An hour? A day? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actually dissociated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once. "

Oh, gee, LadyBug...whatever will I do without the respect of a conspiracy nut? Where shall I go? What shall I do?

You're not reading any of my posts, anyway - so what do I care?

Actually, I'm no "amateur" physicist, but that's beside the point. The math for what the speed of a building's fall should be is probably one of the least complicated areas of physics - i.e. - you could give this problem to a high schooler and they SHOULD be able to answer it.

This level of physics was what I was taught when I went to high school at least. From there, you could go as far as String Theory, Z theory, into Gromov-Witten theory and such...areas where math and physics really are theoretical, but no - this is not that difficult, nor is it anything that is considered "theoretical physics" anymore.

Here, I'm giving you the opportunity to show what you can do with what you should have been taught in High School. Please do that, and please spare me your ignorance until you can provide that which you should have been able to provide your 10th grade physics teacher with.

I would like to say something. This may make some people angry. Those of you who damn others because they do not believe that the government could do something like this, or those who believe the opposite that the government did not have any thing to do with it should take a look at your selves. I for one think that theo47 like to badger people who do not agree with him, and I think that most of the people arguing with him present some pretty good points, yet when he cannot fight back he resorts to name calling.

" Oy, vey.

Like I've said to others, you're a fundamentalist where 9/11 is concerned.
A Heaven's Gate'r.

You've drunk the Kool-Aid, you're past the point of no return.
Nothing anyone can tell you or show you will sway your beliefs. "

" If only you were.

I'm perceiving that I'm talking to a bunch of brainless idiots right now - are you going to tell me my perceptions are wrong, even though I'M RIGHT HERE TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW?!?"

It proves that when some one who has concrete belief in something is attacked by some one who does not believe, the fight will end up coming to punches. Try to have a nice argument, because calling some one a fundamentalist does only to fuel the arguments, and prove how much you wish to instigate more attacks on your beliefs.

But hey o well, its funny to see you contradict yourself with simple badgering instead of fighting the arguments like some one with out a hate for others beliefs would.

The same thing that goes for theo47 goes for choggie and others, but i have seen more posts by theo47 flaming people than i have of choggie. To say the fact that i really kind of expected some drama in here hehe.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project I read this a couple of times. It's a nice breakdown of all the seeming holes in the whole 9/11 story complied from news sources from around the world. The picture it paints and the one we are presented by the goverment differ significantly.

I don't enjoy sling matches, but Theo honestly I can't understand your unwillingness to even entertain or ask why certain things don't add up. Are you QMing now? To me you sound like those people who questioned there being another shooter on the grassy knoll during JFK. Only after the Zapuder film was it clearly shown Oswald could not have fired from the back. Questioning that event made you a tyrant back then as well, even after the Warren Commission.

And the day President Bush decided that Henry Kissinger needed to head the 9/11 commission is the day I lost all belief in anything they formed or said about the event.

I totally agree, Nord. I don't mind name-calling - it really doesn't instigate me too much.

To be honest, I kindof like the questions people(like theo47) pose, even the accusations people make, because they give me their views. I don't like to be told that I'm not willing to have my beliefs swayed, but I do know what would sway my beliefs, and so I respond the way I do.

I'm certainly willing to give up my beliefs though - as a matter of fact, I'd love for solid evidence of anyone's viewpoint to be shown - I'd love for a fellow physics student to sit me down and completely knock my socks off, but in order for them to do that, they have to know what it would take - I certainly don't need an SGI simulation of the entire thing put in front of me, although that would be pretty wild.

I think all of us have made our points here. I'd really just like to see a chart describing how those buildings could fall that fast - something that I can test and go "hey, whoa - the official story holds water." Many of my friends feel very similarly, although they are not as vocal as I have been, here.

I don't know what theo47 wants to see. It seems like nothing that he is presented with he even takes consideration into. That makes me sometimes feel quite odd, especially since he claims to be an atheist but doesn't see the parallel between the Bible and the news/TV.

For those who might want to know why I see them as very similar, I'd just like to point out the value of inference. The fact that what doesn't exist often proves to be as important as what is recorded as existing.

What does not exist, what does NOT happen, can not be reported on in the news, and certainly was not reported on in the Bible. The news, however, can make stories up, if they want to, in place of things that they did not report on as happening, since, to mention every thing that did NOT happen in any news report would make for quite a lengthy news report, indeed.

What's the value of zero?

"Blorgnots were not invented today..." The news can't report information like that lol.(well, except in retrospect citing when they WERE invented)

It makes no sense - I'm the one actually dealing with the facts at hand responsibly, and the mob with the unbelievably ridiculous controlled demolition theories are getting the back-up.

Whatever; I'm done, I'm spent - weave your webs of conspiracy without me. Kthxbye.

If you look up at the comments and do a page search for "OK, I finally watched this" you'll see that theo47 made 9 comments before he even watched the movie. I would even bet money that he has still not watched the movie, despiting claiming to. This is the reason he is resorting to name calling and is only responding to what people have said--in the above 82 comments (15+ of which are his) I have not seen him directly talk about, or refute anything that was in the movie.

You are never going to sway or convince people like this. They have their mind made up and will protect their core beliefs at any costs even if that means ignoring insurmountable evidence.

As for the posters being conspiracy theorists, considering people on this board to be "tin-foil hat wearing nut-jobs" is like considering someone who enjoys looking at the stars to be an astronomer. Most of the people on this board are just regular people who happened to spend 2 hours of their time watching this movie and realized--Hey, this movie raises a lot of really interesting questions which cannot be resolved with the official story.

**hugs** theo

"For those who might want to know why I see them as very similar, I'd just like to point out the value of inference. The fact that what doesn't exist often proves to be as important as what is recorded as existing.

What does not exist, what does NOT happen, can not be reported on in the news, and certainly was not reported on in the Bible. The news, however, can make stories up, if they want to, in place of things that they did not report on as happening, since, to mention every thing that did NOT happen in any news report would make for quite a lengthy news report, indeed."

summed up simply, by one crazy freak from cross the pond..."Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law." and for that matter, isn't free will, kind of the blessing/curse program we as BPH must suffer???....(bi-pedal homo-hominids)...until Earth herself or her surrounding bodies deal us allll a blow we can't wake from in a familiar state???
Peace to all, sorries for the wedgie theo47, had a rough week....for choggie that means not stranglin'a few people, otherwise known as friends or myself.....(which is difficult with only eighteen hands)

Theo, you really gotta be just typing for giggles at this point. Show me once where you addressed any concern, any question of physics, any way that a massive steel WTC7 fell.

You just call names, and say that we can't deal with the obvious.

"It makes no sense - I'm the one actually dealing with the facts at hand responsibly, and the mob with the unbelievably ridiculous controlled demolition theories are getting the back-up."

I've never read such CRAP. Deal with the facts. If you watch the PBS video (and any of these) you'll see the elaborate description of the core of the towers with tons of steel, then the concrete floors anchored the the center and the outer shell. So, simple question, if the floors bowed and pancaked all the way down -- what happened to the steel core?

Why wasn't it still standing like a bolt through the middle of a stack of washers? Why didn't it just topple in one direction like a massive 100-story steel tree? I can understand the floors falling, and the outer skin, but the core was built essentially like the Eiffel tower. Why wasn't it in say, three massive pieces? How could they have just fallen apart under their own weight?

And WTC7, there is no explanation. It's not about feeling special, it's about people pissed off cause they were lied to. You are happy about being lied to, and you get mad at us for trying to reason with you. For telling you to think, ask yourself if it makes sense. Steel building don't fall from fire. Heck, explosives often aren't enough to take them down and the demo company has to try twice.

Watch the videos again, and you will hear firemen talk about a bomb. You will hear a news guy being told to get away from WTC7 because it is going to come down.

Have any of you looked at the NIST report? For the collapse research, that is really the first place to go (and not the Commission Report which is imminently readable but light on scientific rigor in a lot of places).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This is the quick cheat sheet, but the whole report (long!) is worth reading, particularly to offer one set of answers to Ladybug's questions.

From my vantage point, NIST and the MIT studies have a better explanation than the Loose Changers and the scientists in this documentary. NIST does not have a very great analysis of WTC7, though, or the put options.

It does seem like the Loose Changers have 100% certainty in only one thing. Bush/Cheney/CIA/Mossad brought down the Towers via controlled demolitions. And that conclusion, like Sen Inhofe's belief that global warming is pure farce, does not seem to be supported by most of the scientists who have analyzed this event. But it is worth questioning and it is worth continued examination rather than political cover-up in the guise of "healing."

I suppose Sen. Inhofe could be 100% correct as well. (But I really hope not).

OMG, YOU MUST WATCH THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

SaNdMaN: Interesting parody, but a completely different scenario unfortunately - a head on collision between two objects of different densities at different speeds is completely different than the weakening/melting of steel with kerosene. It's like trying to compare driving your car into a block of ice with lighting a kerosene fire in the car.

Without another accelerant like Thermite/Thermate to raise the temperature of the fire, much of the metal components will survive, structurally. They won't look too nice, but the car's roof and frame will stay in place(assuming that you have an older steel-framed car, and not an aluminum or other alloy framed car[unless of course your car somehow has a Titanium alloy or Tungsten alloy frame or whatnot, which I don't know of any that do, but it's a nice thought]).

Of course, many cars have plastic based bodies, so the roof itself might not stay in place, but the frame shouldn't have too much of a problem.

Last I knew, the exterior of the WTC buildings were not made out of plastic, so there's really very little chance of a fire causing their destruction.

Actually, they caught on fire before, even, and didn't get destroyed(unless we somehow rebuilt them and I wasn't aware of it).

Of course, now I'm just ragging on you - sure, it's POSSIBLE(through such theoretical physics as Quantum Mechanics and whatnot) that kerosene could have caused the WTC buildings to collapse - making them the first, second, and third steel and concrete buildings to collapse in the recorded history of the planet, but the probability of it actually happening is about the same as the probability of you being able to push your hand through a solid steel plate without any resistance - sure, according to Quantum Mechanics, it COULD happen, but, well, how many times have you leaned up against a building only to find out that your elbow was half-submerged/half-merged with the brick and mortar?

To date, I know of only one person who can achieve this effect - a guy by the name of John Hutchison.

He uses something like 6 or 8 Tesla coils to do it, too, and if 6 or 8 Tesla Coils big enough to surround the WTC complex were around them that day, well then I probably wouldn't be arguing that the destruction of the WTC complex was not caused by just the planes alone...then again, it'd be way too obvious that the planes were not the only causes of their destruction that documentaries such as this one wouldn't be needed....not to mention the power requirement that'd take....lol

So yeah, get a solid steel plate and practice pushing your hand through it - let me know when you're able to, and I'll consider taking some of the things you say seriously. According to Quantum Mechanics, it's possible, and so long as you believe it's possible, well you should be able to prove it, huh?

Have fun!

(p.s. - before you start on "well planes hit WTC 1 and 2," don't forget about WTC7 - buildings that were closer to WTC 1 and 2 still stood[even after being completely covered in the rubble and heat of WTC 1 and 2] while WTC7 fell in much the same way as WTC 1 and 2, with hardly any damage, and no fire that I saw)

Heres a video of Giuliani admitting that he knew that buildings were going to collapse, and Silverstein admitting that they "pulled" or used demolitions on building 7.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6357586375896950217&pr=goog-sl

bullet. proof.

Yea that NIST report makes a lot of sense -- like where they state that it would take months and months to plant enough bombs to bring down the buildings and because the WTC was so strong the bombs might not even be enough to bring it down.

So bombs can't bring down the building but planes can?!

The NIST report makes more sense to me than the controlled demolition theories.

imstellar, you know that Alex Jones puts the 'nut' back in 'wingnut', don't you? For a dissection of the video you posted, see also http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
It is like presenting a video by Dick Cheney about the truth of Saddam/Al Qaeda ties.

But Alex does have product to move . . .the prisonplanet doesn't sell itself.

interesting site, Mr. Rick.

I can pick apart different details about their various "debunking" of 9/11, but it looks like they're using just straight civ sources for their information - like the Pentagon's anti-aircraft weaponry. It's quite well known, within the military, and especially to those who frequent Fort Meade often, that the Pentagon has it's own anti-aircraft system, but yes, like they state - it IS quite classified, and for good reason, too. Various officials in the Pentagon even deny it's existence, and also - for good reason.

While I agree that Alex Jones is as much of a tool as Bush, I can't help but think that all of the bickering we see on various websites is also just that - tools. Nobody is really doing anything about this - there are way too many odd "coincidences" surrounding 9/11 for the story that various government agencies and the single "independent" investigation into 9/11 provided to be entirely true, but nobody has any solid facts - neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor the NIST report tried to apply basic principles of physics to what happened on 9/11.

I'm still awaiting an explanation on WTC7 - if you actually read through the whole document at the debunking911 website, you too should be able to come up with a couple questions on your own. For instance - if the southwest corner of the building was as damaged as the site says it was, why did the east side fall first?(by their own admission, even)

I have a number of questions for the people who made this website, just reading through all of the documents on the website(and printing them out), but like I stated above - the very fact that there are no solid facts about what happened on 9/11 ought to give some credence to both the 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists" AND the "Official Story Conspiracy Theorists," as both "sides" may have various points that they are correct about. Ultimately, I think this type of discussion should be welcomed, but unfortunately is not, and I think that people should start to actually take action, rather than just bicker like we do on the various forums online.

By taking action, I suggest petitioning for a new, independent, investigation into the physical facts, and financial information known about 9/11. Why did the towers fall so fast? Why did X amount of Y stocks have large amounts of put options placed on them in the days prior to 9/11(apparently 95% of which was from an unnamed single source, as per the 9/11 Commission Report)? Why did WTC7 fall, even though so many other buildings closer to the towers, that were much more damaged than WTC7, did not fall? If it is claimed to have fallen as a result of fire, what caused the fire when no other buildings in the area caught fire as a result of the debris from the WTC 1/2 collapses?

There are too many questions concerning 9/11, and that has bothered me right from the start. If the questions were small and not noteworthy, well, that's one thing, but the amount of questions concerning 9/11 tends to grow as more information is known, even when the information is meant to answer other questions.

I completely agree with your call for an independent evaluation (perhaps even performed by non-Americans) into the questions that remain. I have always found the 'healing', hold hands, and don't point fingers approach of the 9/11 Commission to be undernourished at best. But I find the NIST volumes on North and South Towers and the links posted by bamdrew in the other recent post (http://history.videosift.com/video/911-News-Footage-The-Ultimate-Con-trailer)to be as compelling as the scientific and physical evidence in support of global warming. And I would hazard that many Truthies often believe more in the dream of fraud than the cold scientific facts that stare back at them in some of the reports. The Inhofe approach.

NIST is now completing a study on WTC7. It will be interesting to read that report. I imagine that it will create as many questions as it answers.

I believe that you have to introduce analysis of this catastrophe from a position of good faith or at least from more distance. It may be that more distance and time is required in order to avoid what has really become a highly partisan and CYA activity on all levels. The debunking 9/11 site is just as guilty as Alex Jones in playing the game, although I don't know if they have radio shows, books, and content deals to support.

benefit of the doubt then, after the results are in, then business as usual, welcome to America....

Rick - I think it's slightly humorous that you reference the NIST volumes in relation to global warming(did you mean to?). I say that because I don't really see an active debate in much media with global warming, either - people assume that scientific and physical evidence exists, that no scientists are doubting it or contradicting it, when there are actually quite a number of scientists trying to debate against it.

Unfortunately, I didn't know this until recently, and because of posts similar to these here, I have since read a couple whitepapers, watched a couple documentaries and, in my mind, there is a case against global warming as well - we just don't hear about it much because it doesn't have any mainstream press....except, oddly, in the UK...sometimes...when the BBC feels like putting out a docu on it.

In that respect, yes, I do find the NIST volumes on the North and South Towers to be as compelling as the scientific and physical evidence in support of global warming, too - granted, they don't actually apply basic principles of physics within their reports, but they are compelling to say the least.

I think the big problem is format - if the scientists that set out to "debunk" every part of what various government agencies stated in their reports INSTEAD got together and formed their own investigation based on a set of beliefs/facts that the majority of scientists and investigators on both sides of the debate agree upon(axioms) and used that information to come to a hypothesis, well, I feel that would follow scientific principle more accurately, at least, than this essentially political debate that we see everywhere now.

Granted, it wouldn't be perfect - all of the notes and meetings would need to be public, and there would have to be a set of rules laid down before the fact - but it would be quite more accurate than simply stating the extremities that both "sides" have stated. Some simple rules:

1. Form a list of known axioms from all parties interested in what happened on 9/11. These axioms can be supported in any medium - physical evidence, documents, video, audio, etc.
2. Classify this information based on context - financial, structural(WTC 1,2,7,etc), etc.
3. Determine the known proofs for these sets of information - i.e. - financial analysis, existing physical law, etc.
4. Determine various theories for what happened on/what caused the events of 9/11.
5. Use the proofs to test the contextualized information against the different theories - basic physics for the buildings, financial analysis for the stock trades, etc.
6. Make charts of the probability of which theories are the most likely to have occured, and denote WHY they are the most probable. Give all of the charts the same scale, just to show how probable each is against the others.

I think that's about the most accurate I can come with the "simple rules" for this. The next step, before faulting anything or anybody, should be to try to plot out motives, as well. While simply stating "they hate our freedoms" does quite a lot to rile the public, it is more often that not a dramatic statement, as the people we talk about may also consider themselves "freedom fighters" - everything is in context. If it is probable that various people within our government played a part in this - why?

I tend to notice a lot of the truths in the things Daniel Quinn talks about in his book "Beyond Civilization." In it, one of the things he mentions, that I think many of us forget, is that our participation in this invention called civilization is voluntary, and that many of us know that civilization is not a good method of organizing humans, as it more often than not benefits those that organize us, when many of us are happier with seemingly less than civilization could give us, and others want more, civilization offers us an "equal way of life."

It is for this reason that I suggest that we not place fault on those that govern us, even if they are traced as being the ringleaders of what happened on 9/11 - President Bush himself has stated that 9/11 started a "war for the very thing we call civilization" or some such(I do not, unfortunately, remember the exact quote, but I thought it was striking after having read so much of Mr. Quinn).

If the governing body was trying to think in the public's interest, it would then make sense that they would try to preserve civilization, in my mind at least. All we have known - most all of us in the United States right now - all our life is the life that civilization provides - fruits, vegetables, culture, technology, from all parts of the globe, imported(mostly) for our own enjoyment. In return, we provide labor to possibly create and trade what we are interested in for what another country, another culture, even, might be interested in, but if what we think they might be interested in is not what they are actually interested in, well then that may create this dilemma, by normal societal operation - a dilemma of FAIR trade on a planet where the value is essentially ARBITRARY.

It would take probably close to a century to change our expectations so drastically - at least that's what I think. But, if all of us agreed upon simply walking away from civilization, we would have other advantages and disadvantages to contend with, and the lives that we have built up to this point would not have the value, on a global market, like they do today.

It was a deliberate comparison. I see the same alignments of scientific consensus, scientific insurgents, and general wingnuttery in both the global warming movement and the Truth/Debunk struggle.

It is interesting that you mention Quinn. New Tribalism is a very compelling vision, and radical in the sense that it is contrary to the strains of economic globalism, net connectivity, and military industrialism that are dominant now.

Unabomber's Manifesto paints a rosy picture too, rickegee, but a bit too radical for most.....Hey cryptographrix , the problem with your idyllic vision of investigation, is that more than likely, as in the case of the Warren Commission's classified docs, the stuff will remain so, "classified", until enough time has passed for all involved are either dead or missing...The evidence produced for scrutiny tampered with or altered, etc. etc.....Ass covering is a science, and a developed one, at that....

Yeah, but Quinn hasn't resorted to mail-bombing the tech enemy. Yet. Luddism can be liberating, particularly when you have a slow connection. I wish that the New Tribalism wouldn't reject technology and the possibilities of communities such as this one in favor of the organic, small agrarian vision.

choggie - I understand that a lot of it has and will remain classified, but there are a set of facts and beliefs that people interested in investigating 9/11 do generally believe on - for instance, the speed of the towers' falls and the composition of the towers. People even now have, at their hands, the blueprints to the North Tower. It isn't much, but it is information that we can organize and test, as scientists(not politicians - scientists test physical theories against facts produced by experimentation. Politicians deal with policy, and the enforcement of such policy.).

Rick - As for New Tribalism - as Daniel Quinn says, it doesn't need to completely reject technology, nor does it in most cases. Authors like William Gibson and Neal Stephenson have written quite a lot of interesting works of fiction describing what amounts to technological "tribes." An author by the name of Bruce Sterling wrote an excellent non-fiction book, The Hacker Crackdown, that actually partially detailed the formation and organization of technological, hacker tribes - some of which still exist today.

It's funny, actually - a lot of the people involved in the hacker community are very technical in nature, and choose to be involved in the community - but some people go the extra step and form the technologically based tribes that many often do not see as being possible to exist. The Ham Radio community/tribe has existed like this for decades. They call themselves a "community," but I refer to them as a "tribe" because every person involved with Ham Radio, at least in the United States, knows the basics of how radio works - even those who merely oversee policy and governance - and some get very specific with it's operation, even going so far as to set up GPRS repeater nets, and even Internet access over radio. It reminds me of Daniel Quinn's use of a circus as a good(maybe better) modern analog for a tribe.

Rick - I guess my thing is, I hate specifically labeling some things - if there is an organization that teaches new tribalism in the sense of it being strictly organic and non-technological, well to me, it ignores what we, as humans, are - we, at the very least, are innovative creatures - I think the radicalism of New Tribalism being contrary to strains like economic globalism, net connectivity - even military industrialism - can be resolved, or even have a place in a form of tribalism.

wow.....so what DID happen anyhow???

Choggie, do you meet your requirements in A? Do you have a PhD?

It should be noted that S.E. Jones is a nuclear physicist- I.E. he does not satisfy A). He researched Cold Fusion in the late 80s,

· S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L. Jensen, J.M. Thorne, and S.F. Taylor & J. Rafelski, "Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter," Nature 338

I encourage everyone to read the wikipedia entry on cold fusion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

However, based on your convictions, I encourage to do the following:
0. Gather some preliminary data.
1. Write a grant.
1.5. Hire a graduate student.
2. Publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Would you agree that if a hypothesis can not be verified through experiment or theory, then it must be rejected? Can you point to a single peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal that supports your current opinion or the opinions expressed on this video? Could you send me that reference? Have you completely read the NIST report? Do you believe that NIST is a government agency where all the researchers are controlled by the government? If these researchers are controlled by the government, are they forced to have these opinions or are they hand picked so that they just never disagree with the Big Borther's agenda?

Recently, you voted for a video, where the speaker, one Jeff King, had a background which could not be verified. Yet he presented himself as a research scientist at MIT, and then spoke as though he had expertise in the areas which he freely discussed. How do you reconcile your condition that anyone who "pooh pooh's" this video must satisfy A), with the fact that you voted for that video?

Sincerely,

MH.

You guys say lets debate, but as soon as someone with inkling of related expertise shows up to the party, you clam up...

The NIST report, which someone claimed had no physics in it..., can be found here

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/reports_june05.htm

as you can see if you download the pdf it actually does contain physics and hard data. If you get confused by the math let me know and I will help you.

This is very nicely done. And ladybug, I think this point blank answers all of your questions.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Damn, I am good. That's what a Ph.D. gets you these days, I guess. The ability to look it up.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by chicchorea.