Printable View
Well It has almost been a decade since the twin towers fell. We've all seen loose change and have heard all of the conspiracy theories, now I want to know what you think about it.
Was it a legitimate terror attack, or a false flag.
I will remain neutral.
Yeah, it was staged by the media, the WTC never existed and it's all fake. Fuck capitalist Amerika!
I wouldn't mind seeing another investigation opened up. Not saying it was staged, mind you. If there's one thing I hate it's the whole "9-11 TRUTH" stuff.
No matter what, foreign policy needs to change drastically.
So far as conclusions are concern, I haven't come to one that I believe with 100% faith. Though the official story has both motive for the accused and a (loosely) believable sequence of events, there are also pretty strong inconsistencies and a damning motive for being a false flag operation as well - more-so than many people are willing to admit.
In the end, I've filed it under just another case of "I'm not going to openly call it a lie, but there is definitely a lot that doesn't add up," and I'm pretty comfortable with that position, for now.
Also, I agree with BLUELINE, about the need for a full, formal and impartial investigation (which was never done, and is now too far gone to ever be done properly).
I dont think it was staged. But I do think that some people in the American government knew about it, and wanted it to happen for their own agenda.
All the evidence suggests it was basically what it looked like; I've yet to see any good evidence otherwise, and the alternative theories are inconsistent with the existing evidence and themselves. I think people go in for the them due to well understood psychological phenomena like confirmation bias and apophenia. I also think there's an element of what I think is one of the main motivators for theories like Freemasonry and the New World Order stuff: people are frightened of (perhaps subconsciously), or else in some way biased in principle against, the thought that the world is chaotic and that stuff happens for no particular 'reason'. It's in some way comforting to think that large events are understood by a group of people and have some underlying order and purpose, no matter how sinister, rather than being the random results of ubiquitous human ignorance and incompetence.
It was shocking and tragic, and what followed after was ridiculous and condemnable. I think foreign policy is healing, though. Recent events have made me optimistic. The UN essentially prevented a massacre and then helped oust a dictator in Libya. I was also struck by the fact that I've seen protesters with American flags, and in Egypt I even saw a placard that said 'yes we can too'. In any case the Bush doctrine has been thoroughly destroyed. Even if Iraq was about setting up a democracy, (which it wasn't, it was always supposed to be about domestic defence, and that has of course been exposed as bullshit), the Middle East has now clearly shown that revolutions can, and must, come from the people. It's really fascinating to speculate on what Iraq would be doing right now if we hadn't done what we did.
I don't think any of it was staged or that anyone in the American government really knew anything about it. But I do think that the Bush administration used the event to their advantage. I'm not exactly sure what their agenda was (oil, defense, nation building), but it seems quite clear to me that they had one and the attacks came in handy for them.
When people are angry and demanding revenge, it doesn't take much to get them in the mood for war.
I agree. You'll note now, that this is also the alleged reason why no one has any rights any more, and that the system can watch and control everything you do even more so than usual. It was definitely used to the system/machine's advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
One of Osama Bin Laden's reasons for attacking the United States (he wrote a physical list of grievances that many officials DID see) was our occupation of Saudi Arabia and actions in the Middle East over the past decades. Al Qaeda does not hate us because of our "freedoms". Al Qaeda hates us because we are "all up in their grill" to say the least.
Get out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Israel, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait... and leave Iran alone. There's a way to prevent terrorism, eh?
Why do so many of you Americans think we should 'get out of Libya'? There weren't even ground forces. Should we have stayed out of Rwanda, too?
I really dislike your poll options. Turning this into a debate between extremists is the reason we're in this trouble in the first place. What happened to middle ground? Why can't someone say "It's really unlikely our own govt did it, but some of the evidence is suspicious and questions still need to be answered?" I mean seriously, if you don't think there's unanswered questions about 9/11 you're dumber than Sarah Palin's aborted baby. That doesn't mean they're out to get us, it just means there's questions.
While I obviously don't know whether it was an inside job or not - even though there are large amounts of inconsistencies to the official story - I think it is important to note that saying "the U.S government did it" generalizes things too much.
The U.S government is in no way an organized, unified entity. There is extreme fragmentation and compartmentalization, with many organizations and power groups not communicating with each other. The F.BI doesn't tell the C.I.A everything it knows, for instance. Furthermore, the line between the public government and private corporations is blurred to non existent. You are left with a situation where individuals and groups simultaneously have positions in U.S policy making, as well as control over large corporations.
It is entirely possible that some of these people staged 9/11, or at least allowed to happen, in order to expand their interests into the middle east. This doesn't mean "the government did it," as if every person in the whitehouse was part of a mass conspiracy, more that a rogue group managed to wrestle enough control to push through their agenda.
Bin Laden actually originally denied involvement in the attacks: "Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. "
After the 60 day period in which the President actually has say over where troops are allowed to go, Congress is required to authorize military action. They did not. Therefore, we should not be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Glad to see you thinking for yourself rather than blindly following an arbitrary rule.
And I have a feeling Washington's lawyers know a little more about this than you anyway.
Congress could have easily passed a Libya Intervention Resolution in a day. In fact, they had 60 days to do so, but rather than inform Congress about these actions and request an intervention resolution, Obama avoided it and continued action. The Iraq War Resolution was passed with evidence AGAINST intervention... and Libya had plenty of reason to support the rebels. I'm OK with the idea of intervening, but I'm not OK with how Constitutional authority was overlooked. Yemen is the same. Congress would quickly pass a resolution (especially with the House in a Republican majority) but rather than do things the legal, correct way, the executive branch does it the illegal way.
I'm confused why people don't find it "bad" that the executive branch actually violates the highest law... (Bush did it, too.)
And now the thread is off topic. I apologize.
I feel that 9/11 was along the same lines as the USS Maine, the Lusitania, and Pearl Harbor (listed in potentially ascending order of severity of offense). By that I mean, it's 'ess about weather or not it was staged, but more about how our government took advantage of the situation, and how damaging that action has been on so many levels.
DING!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Why don't 9/11 conspiracy theorists ever consider the possibility that US intelligence services might have acted incompetently with information preceding the attacks? Makes a hell of a lot more sense than being able to pull off an elaborate cover-up which ended up casting a shadow on the country for the following decade.
All I see is "the CIA/NSA/FBI/etc. would never screw up, therefore they were in on it". That's wrong on so many levels...
The CIA and FBI were still in Cold War mode; they really were just plain old incompetent. Or at least, not omniscient. 'Human' is the word. The Pentagon wrote up endless contingency plans for attack by pretty much every country on the planet; they had zero response plans for large attacks by non-governmental entities.
Do you mean to say that America becoming involved in WWII was a damaging action..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
In Britain we have a weekly show called 'Question Time' where public figures and politicians sit around a panel and are asked questions by a live public audience. It was on tonight, and bizarrely enough, one of the questions was, 'would the Arab spring have occurred were it not for the invasion of Iraq?'. Some Israeli guy spouted some nonsense about how toppling Saddam demonstrated to Middle Easterns that dictators are not invincible, and hence was responsible for the uprising. Fortunately he just got a smattering of OTT applause. Then this Arab replies to the effect of 'the total opposite is true. If you look at Iraq now, it's a total mess. The Egyptian revolution had far deeper reasons, and the US military's invasion of a country had no reason to give them any hope of victory. This is purely the success of the Arabs, and that's the only way to do it'. He got a good round of applause for that.Quote:
DING!
So, some people are stupid enough to be able to warp this into the success of the Bush doctrine, but hardly anybody is buying it.
On a side note, how the f did Britain get dragged into Iraq :lol:?
That's a very murky period. We went to war on the basis of dossiers that turned out to be tenuous fabrications by members of Government.
One of the people at the Ministry of Defence, Dr David Kelly, leaked his concerns (in particular about the very publicised claim that Saddam could hit us with nukes within 45 minutes) anonymously to a member of the press; he was soon identified as the leak and summoned to a hearing where he was aggressively questioned. Not much later he was found dead in the woods.
Personally I can't comprehend how anybody ever voted for the Labour Party again, but they stayed for years. Most of the voters are given stupid amounts of money by the party of course, perhaps integrity isn't the issue; that's a different matter, anyway.
As to motivations, God knows. I don't think it had much to do with oil; I think a large part of it was simply falling for America's rhetoric. I think Blair made it his personal mission to cosy up to Bush; he probably believed the 'War on Terror' was his legacy.
Considering they threw the official story out, I'd say there are some pretty big inconsistencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
But you're right, ever since we took in all those damned nazi scientists the US has been influenced by a covert, unaccountable and unmanageable compartment of government, it doesn't mean the entire system is corrupt.
Wait what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
That was referring to 9/11. The comparison to other events was just about how they were all used as justification for war (obviously excluding pearl harbor), and were handled poorly (certainly including pearl harbor).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Because the stories they come up with are more interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Since Operation Paperclip departments like NASA have been completely out of reach by any electable government official. JFK complained openly about how unaccountable and out of reach government had become, and that was then. Since then we haven't even had a president with the balls to be anything less than an employee to this dark branch of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Wait what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
That was more towards "departments like NASA have been completely out of reach by any electable government official".
Oh, ok. Just trying to help. :chuckle:
...Quote:
Originally Posted by omnis dei
...
...NASA?
l
John F Kennedy among others have complained about levels of government that answer to no authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
@ the op. This is as silly as saying that America did not land on the moon and that was all staged. Wait a minute. Maybe America staged oxygen and there really isn't any. Take time to breathe it while you still can.
Here is a link to a long list of credible people who question the official story. Alex Jones sort of annoys me, but the links are all there regardless.
» Highly Credible People Question 9/11
It seems ridiculous until you actually start to research it. I also think some people don't want to accept it as a possibility because the idea that there are people in power who would mass murder their own citizens for personal gain is too horrific.
Nah, the ridiculous thing is that an act of pointless violence that claimed 3,000 lives was responded to with an act of war that claimed the lives of 7,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians.
WHO CARES if 9/11 was secretly an inside job, when the USA has overtly caused the deaths of a greater number of its nationals anyway, along with colossally greater numbers of civilians?
Well I agree that is certainly ridiculous as well, considering the wars caused many more deaths than 9/11 ever did (respond to murder with more murder.) Nevertheless if there were a power sect within the government willing to murder its own people for its own agenda, I think it would be a good idea to expose them.
But they're already exposed, and nobody cares.
That's not true. The truth is that most overt atrocities are swept under the 'Greater Good' rug, and are softened by the nation's desensitization toward acts of war as a method of 'self-defense.' It's not that nobody cares. It's that people are blinded by knee-jerk reactions to a perceived threat - whether or not that threat actually exists. To expose a blatant agenda to murder 100's or 1000's of American people, as a pretext for military action (even a 'Greater Good' campaign, like the War on Terror was supposed to be), would be huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Gulf of Tonkin was staged, the US is no stranger to staging shit in order to win public support. Not saying 9/11 was like Gulf of Tonkin. But Government Conspiracy is not non-existent.
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Are you confused?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Lol. Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What I said wasn't true was that it was 'exposed.' Something hiding in plain sight isn't necessarily 'exposed.' It's covered up by an alternate explanation.
So what followed that sentence wasn't an explanation of how it's true. It was an explanation of how what you said wasn't true. I guess you just misunderstood, but I didn't think it was that ambiguous.
This is the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that 9/11 wasn't staged beyond the level of MAYBE the CIA knowing about it and not telling anyone.
Oreinonaut: I don't think you get it. The US government and other governments around the world have murdered millions of people and enslave billions and no one seems to care. They carpet bombed Europe and killed millions. They enslaved hundreds of thousands to fight their wars overseas. They put people in rape cages for not paying tribute. How much more fucking obvious does it need to be for you?
I'm not exactly sure wether it was staged or not, but I'd probably even tend to say staged, rather than calling it terrorism. There are just too many strange findings about the story. Yet I'll try to stay neutral about it, because I have no means of telling for sure.
But it wouldn't surprise or shock me in the slightest anymore. Anyone who wants to open his eyes to what humans have done and are doing to the planet as well as each other, for the most ridiculous of reasons, should pretty fast find that a few thousand dying people are not even a droplet in the ocean.
And I wouldn't even dare to blame everything on governments and the likes. It's the civilians and the everyday "innocent" people who are playing their part just as good as any government does. From "I just care about my own life and happiness because that's natural" over "I'm something special and deserve more luxus than others" to "I have no clue about anything in the world, neither did I care to open my eyes once for reality, but hell I totally have to spout my mental diarrhea in everyones face if they're not already as dumb as me".
If those civilian and "innocent" people would wrap it up once in a while and do something for the good something like that couldn't happen eons. But we're not living in a world like that, we're on earth. Unless something changes more drastically than ever before things like this will keep on happening.
http://arch.413chan.net/interdasting...8882035%29.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by DreamVail
I wonder if you would be such a smart ass if you knew someone who died that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seroquel
Most unbelievable thing about it is - how would so many terrorists manage to do everything perfectly all on one day and ever since then everything they try to do in the US they totally fuck up? Did they lose all their best operatives in that one mission?
:whyme:
What does this have to do with the people who died? - And I do know someone who died that day. Why does that even matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I can't speak for Seroquel, but I think the point he was making is that there's no real proof for either, and the government had motive for both.
And I still want to see Hubble photos of the moon's surface showing that little American flag and the legs of the lunar module.
You misunderstand.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I get this. I do. The point that I'm trying to make is that, when this kind of shit is done, it is done in away that is tailored so that it seems like it's a necessity. Those who aren't completely fucking blind can see it. (You; I...) However, the fact that it is so easily explained away as 'collateral damage' keeps it among the realm of 'that which isn't truly exposed.' Maybe I'm being kind of technical here, but that's the way I see it. The reason that people don't care is because - for whatever reasons - they have found ways to explain away the atrocities that they are aware of, as 'Greater Good' solutions, instead of intrinsically malicious acts. Xei is interchanging the exposure of obvious self-defense measures, with what would happen if the population discovered that the government is willingly killing thousands of its citizens, in order to dupe the people into a premeditated war.
Call me crazy, but I think the two revelations would provoke different reactions, among the American people.
7 July 2005 London bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
He did say in the US.
Obviously, but that's their fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
My only point is that it's pretty bizarre that the US can hold all these services for these 'innocent people who will always be remembered' when the reaction was to kill even more Americans.
And it's pretty abhorrent that the US can put the hundredfold greater death toll of civilians that it caused to the very back of its mind. Not Americans; not important.
Xei is winning...or losing? :panic:
No, it wasn't an inside job
I gotta tell you something guys, for a site where the majority of its members pride themselves on how bitchin' their intellect is, yall sure have made some retarded threads.
Whiule this is a good point, it's not even the take-away shocker. You think its hypocritical to honor 3000 dead by killing (far more than) hundreds of thousands more? No one disagrees 9/11 was used for far worse atrocities than 9/11 itself. But it's almost a drop in the bucket considering how nefarious and cruel our government has actually been on the issue. Even with the Official Story thrown out, meaning 9/11 has no official report as of now, it's still considered callous and unpatriotic to question the "official story," which is an act of war against accountability in government. Furthermore, people trying to get medical help for breathing in toxins digging through the rubble have had to fight for over 10 years now to get the help they need. Our politicians love using the tragedy to gain support but won't lift a finger to help the actual heroes. Even after they finally managed to get the bill through Congress that would help the 9/11 heroes, the included legislation that still fucked them over in the end. For one, just to rub salt on the wound and prove they'd cause 9/11 all over again if they had the chance, they made the people receiving medical care prove they weren't terrorists. Secondly, the bill doesn't cover cancer because they may have gotten their cancer somewhere else other than breathing in toxins every day for up to a year. In any possible way, our politicians have weaseled out of their responsibility to justice and the american people. In every possible way, they have been the real terrorists. Not only did they create an atmosphere where terrorist attacks are more likely, they shifted this country radically in the direction of a police state. They usurped our democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I agree with this 100%, but it says nothing about the point I made. What I'm saying is that these aren't atrocities that are actually perceived as malevolence on the part of the government. They are 'necessary evils,' in the eyes of most of the public. This is not a good thing, I agree. But the point I'm making is that this is not on the level of 'exposed atrocities' such as knowingly engineering the attacks or allowing them to happen as a pretext for war. I understand the point you are trying to make, but it really isn't relevant to what I was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Next time you feel compelled to make a comment like that, please keep it to yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
And because your intellect is the greatest of all, you sure are about to explain all the details to us, so we don't have to guess and think anymore. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
I think God did it... God blowed up the towers.
Sure thing lil buddy: Few mountain boys flew a couple of planes into some buildings.Quote:
Originally Posted by StaySharp
We done here?
What about the smoke that's ejected from the buildings at lower levels when they're falling? There's hundreds of weird little things like this that blow your theory out of the water.
So are Americans complaining that there aren't enough successful terrorist attacks anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Also reports by first responders of hearing explosions coming from the basement of the towers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Inner Sanctum is evidence of this :PQuote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
http://i.imgur.com/88vHF.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Spoiler for Inner Sanctum:
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile..._6262656_n.jpg
Did you see the alien thread??Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Well nearly. If you know for sure, which you obviously do, I'll just be expecting names, documents and calculations of course. I did see neither so far, where do you start?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
If it's so obvious, then why would you still be expecting names, documents and calculations? I am amused, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by StaySharp
Yes, we are done here.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
One word: Irony. Pure, simple Irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhavoc
I'm not going to believe either side without proof. Bring something valid or don't bring anything.
The notion that it was staged is total BS.
Lots of one liner opinions in this thread, but how about something with a little more meat.
This is a great post from abovetopsecret which gives details as to why many believe it was a controlled demolition. 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story., page 1
Much to read there, but even without diving deeply into details it should be apparent that the way both towers collapsed is fishy.
An almost perfectly symmetrical collapse at near free fall speeds of three buildings (including wtc7) due to fire. Without knowing anything about physics, you can see why this is very, very odd. Imagine the top portion of the tower collapsing due to structural damage. It is unlikely it would fall straight in on itself instead of collapsing a-symmetrically off to one side , yet it implodes straight down. Even if it did implode in on itself for some reason, why did it do so at near free fall speeds? The lower sections of the tower were still intact and would have greatly slowed its descent. Furthermore, almost no large chunks of concrete are found, or semi intact sections of the building. Just dust. Couple this with multiple explosions heard prior to the collapse. Now this happened to not one, but 3 buildings that day. All reduced to dust in their own footprint.
You could go on and on as to why people think it was an inside job. Many of alleged hijackers are still alive. Flight experts say that maneuvering the jets into the towers at those speeds would be incredibly difficult, yet the hijackers were reportedly near incompetent pilots according to their instructor. The plane's themselves were not intercepted by the airforce. The 9/11 commission was prevented from ever doing a full report.
I know that when one believes something, it is easy to find data that corroborates that belief. However before just dismissing the idea of an inside job as a conspiracy theory, actually take a look at all these "inconsistencies" and judge for yourself.
And if you saw how much work it takes to bring down a building, you'd find the controlled demolition idea equally inconsistent.
For a normal sized building they have hundreds of workers stripping the floors to the bone, weakening the structure in some areas while strengthening it in others, installing and wiring the explosives, etc.
All this under the nose of tens of thousands of workers with not a single person coming forward with an ounce of regret after 10 years? Does that make sense?
So far semantic layman's guesses about complex physical situations with no actual calculations or experiments done. Cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
Yes, getting a plane to hit a target far wider than itself is extremely hard, that's why pilots only manage to land on runways around 50% of the time, and never in a million years could they consistently land in the middle.Quote:
You could go on and on as to why people think it was an inside job. Many of alleged hijackers are still alive. Flight experts say that maneuvering the jets into the towers at those speeds would be incredibly difficult, yet the hijackers were reportedly near incompetent pilots according to their instructor.
Or you could just ask Spartiate. Or... play Microsoft Flight Simulator. Again, whose formed these opinions..? Who relayed the information? Be honest.
Also, how many of the far huger inconsistencies in your account that Spart just pointed out did you come up with when performing critical evaluation? And how many of them do you spend time wondering about?
I honestly do not know what happened that day, however I am trying to bring attention to details which are worthy of consideration. I don't spend all my time investigating 9/11, so I am mainly just viewing info on people who have. So you are right much of what I pointed out wasn't done by personal research. Regardless, when a compelling case is made, it should be brought to other people's attention.Quote:
how many of the far huger inconsistencies in your account that Spart just pointed out did you come up with when performing critical evaluation? And how many of them do you spend time wondering about?
It was mainly suspicious because of the speed at which they were flying at impact, coupled with their poor performance during training. Pilot's opinion here Different than doing a slow, controlled descent onto a runway.Quote:
Yes, getting a plane to hit a target far wider than itself is extremely hard, that's why pilots only manage to land on runways around 50% of the time, and never in a million years could they consistently land in the middle.
Yep, no calculations or experiments. Don't have any desire to get involved in physics or structural engineering. Even though though both towers collapsing into dust seems highly unlikely to me, lets ignore those for now and focus on WTC 7 This was supposedly due to a fire. It looks identical to controlled demolitions.Quote:
So far semantic layman's guesses about complex physical situations with no actual calculations or experiments done
I agree, it would seem likely that more people would have come forward not only in regards to the controlled demolition, but as part of the whole plot as well. The explanation given was repair crews were admitted into the elevator shafts shortly before 9/11, and these elevator shafts have access to the central support structure of the buildings.Quote:
(installing explosives) All this under the nose of tens of thousands of workers with not a single person coming forward with an ounce of regret after 10 years? Does that make sense?
I think the best opinion is no opinion. All of us are sitting at home on a computer right now and are in no way directly involved with the government, or real investigation regarding 9/11. Anything as big as 9/11 being an inside job requires the burden of proof to be on those who support the theory. However there are many questions which were never answered, of course not all addressed in my tiny post. These should not just be ignored.
No opinion here yet, but I have questions..
One of the common claims I see is that both towers collapsed as if in free fall. Can that happen if there are obstructions to the collapsing floors on the way down?
The other thing I noticed are puffs of what looks like dust or smoke coming out of the windows at least 10-20 stories below where the floors are beginning to collapse.
If you go to 2:20 in this video, you'll find a clear shot of what I'm talking about. The "puffs" can be seen on the right side and the forward face of the building on the same floor, at the same time. What might have caused that? It shows up in videos of both buildings.
That's the point which stands out for me the most. The planes hit near the very top of the towers, and when they collapse you see the section above the impact site fall down first, and supposedly the weight of this crushed the rest of the tower. Is that enough to decimate the rest of the building so completely? If so, would it at least have not have collapsed so perfectly? Especially footage of the south tower shows the whole top section leaning on an angle as it begins its descent, yet it drops perfectly vertical. It doesn't seem right that a plane hitting one side of the building and a fire spreading randomly would cause a uniform collapse. Unless the damage was spread evenly around the building, it should collapse unevenly.Quote:
Can that happen if there are obstructions to the collapsing floors on the way down?
However, perhaps with the immense weight involved it simply gains too much momentum to fall to the side. Imagine having a jenga tower and then pulling some blocks out of one side - its going to fall over at an angle. But if the weight was enough maybe it would just implode straight down on itself.
The official explanation for the puffs is compressed air forcing itself outwards due to the collapsing debris above. This is questionable due to it being dust and debris that is being expelled, not just air, but maybe the air compression would force out a bunch of material with it.Quote:
The other thing I noticed are puffs of what looks like dust or smoke coming out of the windows at least 10-20 stories below where the floors are beginning to collapse
Okay I admit, the tower was actually an empty box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
New Footage of WTC North Tower Collapse - YouTube
The debris ejected from the tower (the large piece thrown off to the right) is patently falling faster than the building disappears. :|
The loads in the falling tower would multiply to become vastly beyond what each individual floor was supposed to support (i.e. the upward force provided), so it would of course fall quickly. It's a concrete building.
You really can't think of the answer yourself?Quote:
The other thing I noticed are puffs of what looks like dust or smoke coming out of the windows at least 10-20 stories below where the floors are beginning to collapse.
If you go to 2:20 in this video, you'll find a clear shot of what I'm talking about. The "puffs" can be seen on the right side and the forward face of the building on the same floor, at the same time. What might have caused that? It shows up in videos of both buildings.
Yeah, maybe if you blow dust it will move. Good thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
http://emotibot.net/pix/366.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And if you saw how much work it takes to bring down a building, into its own footprint, you'd find the idea of crashing a plane into it (or starting a fire in it, which was the case with building 7), as a means of bringing it down perfectly, equally inconsistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Can't highlight one inconsistency and completely ignore the rest. Not saying that there aren't explanations for both, but neither idea is completely without its fair share of questions.
[edit]
Oh, but to answer your earlier question, I haven't seen the alien thread in IS. Which one are you talking about?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/a.../240406wtc.jpg
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/m...06collapse.jpg
Find it hard to believe that is "falling" down on it's own.
Building 7 was actually a controlled demolition due to damage suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2, but that fact has been lost in the annals of history. But it wasn't a conspiracy. I actually remember watching CNN (or something) that day any they explicitly said that 7 was being demolished. And then somehow the whole record of the demolition got lost in government bureaucracy. Then the "truthers" latch onto it and force the government to take the opposite position, ie. it was NOT demolished.
But yes, 7 was a controlled demolition. No, there was no conspiracy.
As for 1 and 2, if you think they look even remotely like demolitions, then you're an idiot. Go on youtube and watch a real demolition. Nothing alike.
I have a dream, that one day we will have a forum where all of our community members possess the mental capacity, maturity and self-control to be confident enough in their opinions to express them without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks as their crutch.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I HAVE A DREAM, TODAY....
http://i.imgur.com/a0YIV.jpg
Shout it out Brother O!! Halleluja!!
You do the same thing, just in a less direct way. At least I can admit that I think some people are morons, and have the courage to tell them. On a forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Well, let's see. Dust/debris/smoke blew out on each side of the tower from the same floor, about twenty stories below where the collapsing layers were. The floor that the debris blows out of isn't the next floor to break either, the floors are still collapsing in succession above. If a floor is being rammed down to the floor below, the debris should blow out of the window of that floor. And I don't see how debris is blowing out of the floor that hasn't even broken yet. Debris from a clean floor? Was everything covered in dirt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yea, I can think of an answer Xei. But I wasn't interested in my answer.
What you fail to realize is that disagreeing with someone on any particular topic (even if you feel your views are the obvious truth) does not make that other person a 'moron,' an 'idiot,' or anything of the like. It simply means they may not have a good grasp of the particular topic. Someone who doesn't understand a certain subject could very well prove to be 1000x times smarter than you in other areas, so to declare that person a 'moron,' just because they have what you see as a lack of perspective on a certain issue is both unnecessary and often inaccurate. Otherwise, your own lack of perspective on this issue would justify me calling you a moron, using your own standard. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
That's your prerogative. I'm not going to censor myself any time soon, so get used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
You see, that's the wonderful thing about forums having moderators. It's expressly stated in the forum rules that there is little to no tolerance for people who are constantly beligerent, disrespectful, or simply refuse to treat our community members civily. Seeing as how you seem to be that type of person, you won't have to 'censor yourself' (we can do it for you), and I definitely don't have to get used to it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
'9/11 truthers are idiots' is now a statement that will be censored on DV. This is to help achieve maximum truth.
I think the conspiracy theories sound very far fetched, and am inclined to buy the official version.
That's it! Tell of the mods. That'll teach them! :cheeky:Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Especially true since demolitions always look the same, regardless of the building that's being destroyed. Not to talk about the fact there is only one type of explosive on this planet that can be used for demolitions so they all even look alike as if they are twins. The demolition of a tower looks just like that of a bridge, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Err, no seriously now, without irony. Demolitions barely look alike, there are several types of buildings, construction materials just as well as deconstruction materiels. C4, TNT and shaped charges, to name just a few of the deconstruction ones.
If you take two buildings for demolition and they are constructed the same way, then the demolition will probably look alike, yeah. I didn't see any WTC like buildings demolished so far. Maybe that's due to the fact only two towers of that type were constructed so far.
If you just go on youtube for a few minutes, watch a few demolitions and think you're ready to tell how a demolition looks like and how not, you're probably taking the wrong turn in terms of thinking somewhere.
Also adding to this:
As well as basing their opinion on thorough thought or scientifical facts. Not on a few youtube videos here and there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wait, so they went inside the building during the day while it was on fire to plant explosives?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
It wasn't on fire, it just had structural damage. But yes, they planted charges after the collapse of 1 and 2 and then they demolished 7 in the afternoon. Again, this is not a conspiracy, it's just bureaucracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube
Looks like fire to me.
Maybe you are right, but it seems odd that their official statement mentions nothing about demolitions. Do you have any links?
Staged I have seen a video that clearly shows and explosion PRIOR to the plane's impact.
Could I see it please?
Like I said, it was lost in the bureaucracy. There was a lot of confusion that day. Is it so hard to believe that the city did something without bothering to tell the federal government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
And I've already said this once, but I guess I'll say it again: the "Truthers" have forced the government to take the opposite position of whatever they say, lest they get credibility. They say that 7 was demolished (which it was, but not as a conspiracy), which forces the government to stick to the (incorrect) story that it collapsed. Try to remember that the people in power are all too human.
While this may be a superficial concern, after reading the open letter Osama Bin Laden wrote to the United States... he makes so many good points for why he warranted the attacks. Honestly, I think it was not staged, because the US would have made him seem much more irrational if they devised an open letter.
He mentioned various military actions taken by the United States on Muslim nations, our support of dictators that the people do not support, our sanctions and how they cause the death of millions due to starvation and inability to import food and goods, and the bases we have in their Holy Land (along with our support for Israel who was established after WWII as a form of reparations).
He said he would like diplomacy with us to discuss our problems. He also wanted us to reconsider our principles and stop enforcing them around the world, because we did not live by our own principles. He wrapped up most of his argument with "Do not interfere with our politics or forms of education. Leave us alone."
These do not sound like someone who "hates our way of life." it sounds like someone who had a legitimate reason to attack.
Also keep in mind he denied involvement in the attacks initially. Osama bin Laden Denies Involvement in the 9/11/01 Attacks
Terrorist cells operate independently. He probably wasn't informed until after it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad
Potentially true, yes.
At this point it honestly doesn't matter WHY it happened to me. We need to seriously reconsider our foreign policy. If our GOVERNMENT wrote the letter from Osama as a cover... they had a lot of good points.
If Osama wrote it... he had a lot of good points. Maybe we should listen to what he said.
This is also true, in fact the biggest sell for me that it was terrorists was Osama's very believable account as to why he attacked us. We're over there. If we fight over there, we bankrupt ourselves in foreign wars. His strategy was to engage us in futile guerrilla warfare until we were so stretched we could no longer sustain ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
His strategy was to unbalance the US economy?
Err what? I said his plan was too provoke us into exhausting our resources in foreign wars.
As far as I can tell, US financial mismanagement is the reason the wars can't be maintained. They didn't run out of bullets.
I really don't think Bin Laden cared about your 'resources'. He wanted to change world history and attract people to his cause. He hated the US and so he attacked it.
He hated the US... based on all of the reasons he said he hated the US. Our "Freedom and ways of life" were not reasons. In fact he wanted freedom for his own people. He supports freedom... and thinks that America is oppressive. Indeed, we are.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver If you want to read what he said, here it is.
He did recommend that Americans become Muslim, which was a little extreme, but everything else is very logical. He even said he would use diplomacy with us for mutual benefit and to come to a conclusion.
Bullets cost money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
If the top part of the building fell in 10 seconds (9-ish seconds would have been free fall) where is the extra energy coming from to collapse every consecutive floor down the tower? And if the impact of the South tower occurred to the columns on the south-east side (the building even leans in that direction for a moment as it begins to fall) how likely is it for structural failure to occur in the columns on the opposite side once the building picks up speed in the direction of the original failure? The top of the building should have fallen towards the side of the impact, but instead we saw a completely symmetrical, global failure of the tower. How?
Before everyone screams that the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel beams to the point of failure (the Windsor Tower burned for over 20 hours and did not suffer anywhere near global collapse), we should ask ourselves why this lady is standing in one of the impact holes, apparently alive and not burned to ashes.
Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.
To me it honestly looks like something on top suddenly collapsed or a bomb exploded on top, then a split second after a controlled demolition occurs. I feel like I can remember it very vividly without watching a video but maybe I should check again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Well they didn't come down at free fall, as you can see with the debris. The 9/11 commission put the estimate at 10 seconds. I don't know anything about physics, so I can't say if that is fast or not for a building of that size. However it seems like the floors below should have greatly slowed the descent.Quote:
Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Glad I had that base covered yo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
I'll give you a chance to show how you came up with those numbers before I prove you wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
And the debris was actually being propelled downwards by a coating of doublet Higgs Bosons which was sprayed on prior to the collision.
You are half correct. A controlled demolition yes. But not because it was somehow damaged. Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. What should disturb you about this is two things. Firstly it's impossible to plan a controlled demolition in the space of a few hours from when the attacks happened. No-one would admit its normal to plan a demolition of building 7 days before the towers were even attacked. The attack had not even happened when they would have had to set it up the demolition. If you realized that and were not bias and more sensible you might have the ability to stop and think "hang on what was even inside building 7 and what was it used for?".Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Buildng 7 : At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.
I would also add that to say such a thing as cmind has said bout wtc7 without thinking anything is suspicious you would have to fail to grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper and its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, and the illegality of such an operation. But people will believe anything that suits them so its not always about what makes sense but what they want to believe. So even if such a thing was grasped, they may want to ignore it.
I used the kinematic equation: X = X0 + v0t + (1/2)at2Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If we call the height of the tower the origin, X0=0 and since initial velocity of course is 0 that leaves us with
X = (1/2)at2.
Rearranged this is: t = sqrt((1/2)X/a), where displacement X is 415 meters (distance between the roof of the shorter tower and the ground) and a is the gravitational constant 9.8 m/s2.
Plugging these values in gives us a free-fall time of 9.2 seconds.
For the observed fall-time of the tower, I used a stop-watch.
I'd like to see the physics proven wrong, so go ahead.
On the collapse of the towers
9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Twin TowersQuote:
Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?
I don't disagree with your physics, I disagree with your stopwatch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
World Trade Center Collapse NBC - YouTube
You can see the antenna start dropping at 0:53. At 1:03 you can clearly see the majority of the building still above the surrounding skyscrapers with large chunks of surviving concrete not falling out of view until 1:12. A large section of the building's metal core stays up for another 10 seconds after that before completely collapsing. By comparison the falling debris around the tower is falling much faster.
Lol seriously?Quote:
But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two?
Stopwatch is not the most accurate way to measure, but there are seismographs that recorded the events that corroborate the 10 second mark.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html
The rumble from the collapse at least appears to taper off at around 10 seconds, there looks to be some residual rumble. At 1:02 in the video the rest of the tower is obstructed from view, and much of what is falling in the air at that point is moving much slower than the debris that fell previously. Lighter, more air resistant pieces of material? I have heard reports of as high as 18 seconds for the building to fall, but the seismic evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
You don't even needs equations to figure out the speed of the fall. Steel skyscrapers don't fall neatly down from a fire. Does anyone really believe the towers were so flimsily built that an airplane could make it collapse like a pack of cards. This is a massive steel skyscraper designed for multiple impacts. Not something made of plastic that melts and collapses. The idea that one floor could drop neatly down onto the other pushing the next one and next one perfectly down to the ground. That is like something out of a cartoon.
So you think it's less ridiculous that somehow a huge demolition crew managed to sneak in and prep the towers perfectly without anyone noticing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
you're telling me that isn't suspicious an unprecedented extreme power down with many engineers coming in and out with no security. Shortly before the attacks.Quote:
there was a ‘power down’ on the week-end prior to September 11 for approximately 24 to 36 hours. During this period, he says, “there was a complete breakdown of security that weekend because of the power down.
Forbes said they had been notified 3 or 4 weeks in advance by the Port Authority-NY/NJ about this power down and that it was “extreme and unprecedented.” He also said that “without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”
World Trade Center Employee Discusses pre 9-11 Power Downs | 9-11 News | World for 9/11 Truth
Well dayum - that DOES sound suspicious!!
I had never heard about it before. However, that's Tower 2, only from floor 50 up. Other ideas that occur to me - How many engineers would it take, and how long, to fully prep a building that size? And keep in mind, somehow they'd have to do it in such a way that the employees coming into their offices the next day wouldn't notice any det cord or drilled holes or anything. For a controlled demolition, it seems they pretty much have to drill holes in every wall of every room and run det cord all over. How would it be possible to conceal all that? And especially in such a short timeframe?
And then - what about Tower 1 and the lower 60 stories of Tower 2?
Another question that occurs - were employees allowed on the upper 50 stories of Tower 2 on the day of 9-11?
yeah I'm not claiming to know how it was done, what knowledge do you have of the towers construction or what it takes to bring it down? Other than you have to drill holes and run cord around. its not employees job to monitor engineers and they would hardly be doing it next to their office but within the walls of the cable system internally. Ofcourse I will assume it has been demolished rather than it fell down though. Have you seen the collapse its an explosive event its not accidentally falling down how would that even be possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.
My questions weren't really aimed at you - i don't expect you to be able to answer them - just thinking out loud, trying to put forth the relevant questions. There ARE people that could answer some of them - who knows, maybe a member of this site works on a demolition team?Quote:
Originally Posted by knight31
I wasn't suggesting it was the job of employees to monitor engineers or anything like that - I was more thinking when the employees walked back into their offices the day after the powerdown, were things normal? Were there scraps of wire strewn all over the floors, or signs that something major had been done? Some people entered and then left before the buildings came down - I wonder if any of them ever mentioned seeing signs of weird tampering in the halls or offices?
Would it be enough to destroy just the central core? Id think to ensure a clean demolition they'd have to blow the outer walls too.
Yes, the collapse looked very much like controlled demolition. But I'm no expert - I'm a complete layman - hell a complete noob! I don't know what happens when such a tall building is struck by a large plane - I have never seen anything similar to compare it to, nor do I know anything about structural dynamics involved. So conceding to complete lack of relevant knowledge I'll refrain from making assumptions.
I did hear recently that scientists eventually figured out the steel didn't actually need to be liquefied - just stressed and heated enough to soften sufficiently. This could have been accomplished by vibrations from impact. Again, I don't know, just conjecturing.
Experts are stumped - I doubt a couple of complete neophytes talking on a message board are going to figure out anything they haven't.
Nanothermite. Hmmm... is it transparent? Does it have a strong odor? That must have left smells and visible traces that every employee would instantly notice when they walked into their rooms. Were any such reports made I wonder? (again just conjecturing - I don't expect you to answer Omnis).Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
How is nanothermite triggered? Would it still require wiring run all through the building? Or maybe it is enough just to blow the core to bring the whole building down, in which case this whole line of questioning about the state of the offices whn the employees walked in is irrelevant. Still I can't help but wonder out loud here.
It seems to be very exotic, very expensive and very unnoticeable. It is triggered by a high degree of flame. If you've ever made a thermite, they basically take a jet lighter to light. I'm assuming a similar temperature is required for nanothermite. For the building to be a controlled demolition, wiring and such would have to be required. However, the pancake effect of the falls suggest they didn't bother wiring a demolition, just limited the nanothermite to the lower levels and let the heat work its way down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Oh yeah, I saw that episode of Mythbusters!! Badass stuff!! I hate the way my mind flipflops on this issue as I sift through different accounts and theories. There seems to be great evidence, though inconclusive, for both possibilities.
That's what I notice, too. Any asshole can debunk loose change and claim therefore 9/11 had to be muslim extremists acting alone, but just because not all the questions lead to suspicious answers doesn't mean none of them do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
JFK on the other hand, I'm not on the fence about. Fucker got plugged by the CIA.
The problem I find with many conspiracy theories is, the people who LOOK for evidence look for evidence that supports their own theory. If the evidence doesn't match up, they keep changing the theory of what happened until evidence does match up.
Why aren't we looking for more evidence that it wasn't a false-flag, say, the letter that Bin Laden wrote, the physics of a falling building that ISN'T demolished purposely, the phone calls that weren't suspicious, but actually completely in line with the "story" that we've been told? There is a ton of evidence on both sides.
"Nanothermite", huh? Making it sound fancy to fool the people that don't know shit about chemistry? Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and a reducing agent, usually aluminum. I don't suppose you might find iron oxide dust in a collapsing building? Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Also, thermite is not used for demolition. It's sometimes used to cut metal, but not to bring down buildings. Furthermore, the "Truthers" claim to have seen explosions, which would not occur during a thermite reaction, which is not explosive.
Because the people that ought to be reinforcing this evidence are too busy acting like it's unnecessary to do so. But I agree, filtering is a terrible trend among conspiracy theorists. And apparently debunkers as well (see blow)Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
-_- I know, I've made thermite. Christ dude open a book. I'm not making anything sound fancy, nanothermite is a refined form made in a laboratory.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
You're right, people do this all the time. When they look for info, they unconsciously filter it so it corroborates their belief. It is very hard to have no belief and just say "I don't know."Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
My mind says "I don't know what happened on 9/11," yet I instinctually gravitate towards false flag. I am aware of this, yet a bias has been planted nonetheless. I notice that I won't spend as much time reading counter arguments or evidence than I would ones that support the bias.
Of course this goes for both sides. This thread isn't so bad, but look at how violently people will chew into those who question the events. Their labeled as "truthers" and morons because they have some questions or a different viewpoint. And many in the other camp call the people who believe in the normal story brainwashed.
Your ego is made out of opinions and beliefs about yourself, others, and the world. So when your beliefs are questioned, on one level it feels like you yourself are being attacked. Many people respond with annoyance and aggression when they hear viewpoints contrary to their own - its a psychological defense mechanism.
9/11 is especially emotionally charged because Americans feel as if their country was attacked. They have the culprit, Al Qaeda, and saying their own government did it pisses them off. It would be as if a family member was murdered and the police said they found the killer. But then some other people come along and tell the family that they have the wrong guy, and it was actually their own cousin who did it. The family wouldn't want to hear it, and they would be angry at these people for such accusations.
I have the same mindset as those who say "they don't really know." I cannot tell you if the government did it, or if it was actually Bin Laden. I'm leaning Bin Laden lately because until recently I hadn't seen his open letter, but I'm sure I'll see evidence the other way soon enough.
Truthers aren't bad people, they want the truth. But people who believe it was Bin Laden aren't bad either. We just have differing opinions.
Some of the people in the truth movement are completely out of control to the point of harassing victims of terrorist attacks and calling them actors working for the secret police while they're trying to recover from trauma. No matter which side is actually, factually correct extremists have tainted every inch in reach of this tragedy with poison.
Warning: haven't read the thread.
The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is, why does the official 9/11 report deny the presence of molten steel at ground zero, despite the fact that their are hundreds of credible eye witness reports (including former mayor of New York, Rudy Guliani) of molten steel from directly after the buildings came down and for several weeks afterwards? There is no explanation in the report as to how the molten steel could have been there because they deny it existed in the first place.
Rudy Guliani knows enough about metallurgy to distinguish molten steel from molten aluminium by sight?
This is a very cool story. I think I'll read it a few more times for the lulz.
Maybe you should stop being a troll and actually contribute to the thread, Xei.
> "The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is:"
> Receive answer
> "Troll"
Awesome thread.
The mayor may not be qualified to make such an observations, but there are many others.
The president of a controlled demolition company, Mark Loizeaux, observed molten steel "at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers."
That being said, I never really saw the significance of molten steel to begin with. Was it just that fire can't melt steel?
And furthermore, apparently molten aluminum is silver when there are other light sources (daylight,) and only glows red in a darkened environment, as it produces a very low level light in and of itself.
So were these observations made in daylight or low light conditions?
There is always this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Cn5...eature=related but with all the material inside those office buildings who knows what we are seeing coming out.
For me it seems more likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Question
Strawman
Question rephrased
Personal attack
Question given up on
Self-declared winner
Maybe someone who knows enough about black body radiation can tell us what the temperature aircraft grade aluminum would have to be at to glow like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
http://www.historycommons.org/events...lten_metal.jpg
:)
That's what contributing means.
Spoiler for Yawn:
Guess how I got this info. Clue: it wasn't via a rare gift. Clue: you can do it too. Not sure why you didn't.
Because it would be nice to see you not be an ass for once. I find it shameful that someone who makes a reasonable inquiry has to get responses like yours. Someone who has their credibility on the line who's going to go out of their way to be specific about the molten material they saw is naturally going to raise some eyebrows. Someone who's seen molten aluminum before is going to ask questions about "the glowing stuff" coming out of the side of the building. The least you could do is be a decent human being and point them in the right direction for knowledge's sake. I'd think you of all people would want to help others find the correct information without turning them off to your approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I enjoy it more when you take the humanistic approach and help others in a positive manner. I like the friendly Xei more. :/
I just thought the original question was so humorously ill-conceived (and it was phrased like it was such a clincher) that it merited a humorous response. I should point out that I know nothing of metallurgy; it just took a modicum of critical thought to see the glaring flaw, and Xaq is perfectly capable of this.
O.K if I get the gist of that molten aluminum will oxidize when mixed with other materials, causing it to glow.
That can explain the picture of the window. Would that account for the "rivers of molten steel" reported at ground zero? The original aluminum was from the aircraft itself, however if they were still encountering large amounts of it weeks after the event, which would require another source. Is aluminum a major component in building skyscrapers?
And invader is right, sarcastic responses don't help prove your point. People will take you more seriously if you come off as sincere and helpful. If you believe theories of controlled demolition are false, you can present counter evidence without belittling people who asked legitimate questions.
I'm more interested about the rescue operations to towers before they collapsed. Here they haven't broadcasted much about what happened in that presice date. What floors they got into, who they found there? How that day went there. Because it seems to reflect throught time as somekind of a rift. My fellow crazious have long come to this theory. Almost all movies involving planes seems to be part of diversing realities crossing over that day. Also those made before the actual date. To open the mystery I would like to know some publicly acceptle things upon things that might seem trivial.
I'm only half serious. And I would find some dark humour if this get's moved beyond dreaming, but I'm also half serious and not trolling
EDIT: not trolling
The original question was not about one picture; it was about the long list of accounts of molten metal that persisted for weeks after the buildings came down.
9-11 Research: Molten Metal
Are all of these sightings airplane aluminum and glass? What about the steel beams with dripping molten ends? The commission report states that the fires in the building or subsequent wreckage were never hot enough to melt steel. Do you think these beams with molten ends were dipped in aluminum?
****stroedngly recomended to insert dream logic here****
I'm open to many possible ways things could have happened. To do science to this I'll just say two words that are held very close to scientific consensus: superposition and multiple worlds (aka paraller time-lines). I'm not joking about this 9/11 being rift in time/space. I know this goes close to beyond dreaming topics, but if would play with the thought of emotional energy existing you could get the picture of how much of it was releashed then. At least half of the worlds population were fearing the 3rd world war beginning then. It's a big fear, like gigantic. Not to mention all the lives lost in one moment, broadcasted around the world. I think that dreaming techniques are outside realm of time and happen to know that shamanic practioners and like around the world got to this moment to help this world to get over it. It did and is taking again a great effort to help world to get over it. It did get us messed up with diversing realities, conspiraties, lifes and memerios of victims and their families etc. So I'm asking in all sincerity some deteails about what is the offical version what happened inside the buildings. I'm not intrested about planes and terrorist versus insidejog and demolitions versus bluebeam holograms versus even more imaginative theories, but floors and people.
I'm guessing that some might take me us complete nutcase, and maybe even mods taking this post out of web, but I'll like to quote Condoleezza Rice on subject: "For those of us in office on that day, it is as if time was suspended. For us and for the victims’ families, every day since then has been Sept. 12."
What did I just read?Quote:
Originally Posted by labyrint