No, I'm saying that, once buried, there are fewer ways for the heat to escape as it would have done if the building were still standing. As mentioned in the numerous links you pointed to, fires were still burning, and being buried means there was no place else for the heat to go. It work like your typical underground oven, something humans have been using for millenia.
and these buried (and therefore oxygen starved and therefore cooler burning) fires melted the steel?
But the entire structure will stay hotter longer than it would if it were exposed to convection or able to radiate heat away.
The way you're talking, the only way to have the steel molten weeks after the collapse is if the building was taken down by nuclear fission.
Hey, I could put words in your mouth as well (but wont).
1) molten steel seen before collapse (see earlier post of mine)
2) Large areas of molten steel found in cleanup
2) Heat flows from hot to cold, whether insulated (by rubble) or not. Insulation affects the time involved not the direction of the heat flow
4) lack of massive, forced, highly preheated air flow, through large underground fires, with sufficient fuel precludes the possibility of widespread large molten steel deposit formation after the collapse, as found in the cleanup
therefore the steel must have already been melted, as by large amounts of thermite or other unexplained extreme heat sources.
That's still less than half of what your typical undergraduate engineering degree requires, and that still doesn't have more than the most basic examination of mechanics. You make unfounded claims about the design of the buildings as well as what a "normal" structural failure looks like, having neither the data nor the experience to back up your claims. If anything, the way you point to your IQ, your unrelated degree, and your "DE for Dummies" coursework as foundation for your claims that run counter to people who do this for a living gives you several points on the Crackpot Index, if not making you a "fucking moron" outright.
I'm sorry if I offended you by defending myself from the personal attacks of someone who didnt want to deal with the issues at hand. Perhaps next time I will just lay down and take it in the ass, like your mum did last night (sorry but I do have a limit, if you refuse to refrain from personal attacks, why should I?). Perhaps, mr guppy sir, you'd like to explain how in your job as national structural engineering, metallurgical failure and general wisdom advisor, you have infinite knowledge on all relevant subjects and anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a moron?
Pointing out your near-complete lack of credentials (or the way you believe they are credentials) isn't an ad hominem attack.
I'm sorry, I wasnt pointing out my credentials (something you have also failed to do, though you seem to think its so important), I was pointing out that I do, actually, have a decently functioning brain, and can, in fact, use my limited knowledge and pitiful scientific training to analyse a situation and come to a logical conclusion; something many call "common sense"; which is generally lacking in "fucking morons", yourself excluded of course. Also, just so you know, "ad hominem : A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute"(google). Lucky that wasnt what you were doing, isnt it?
"You're the one who thinks the images Hollywood has given them of collapsing buildings is the way things are "supposed" to be, and yet I'm the brainwashed one?"
You're right. I did say that the collapses should have looked like the movies. Somewhere. Im sure I said it... didn't I? oh thats right, I was discussing the topic and thinking for myself, while you were making stuff up and putting words in my mouth. Again. Ah well, maybe I did say it and I've brainwashed myself so much I cant see it.
anyway, thats it, no more defenses of my arguments (although I might discuss with people willing to think) for a while, it's tiring me out. If all i've said has not yet convinced you, one more reply wont help.
hehe your right, prolly shouldnt have bolded that whole sentence up, although perhaps the reason theres so many is that it makes sense?. also, I'm not saying the two towers didnt damage anynearby buildings (they were very tall buildings, I would be surprised if a job that good was even possible, even without having to hide that you were doing it. ) but just watch the WT7 collapse, and then tell me how such symmetry is possible from random damage.
"I've watched 911: Loose change. It's interesting, but needs to be taken with much salt."
1.) good, we have a starting point (but even ignoring the commentary, the footage is convincing enough)
"I see no reason to believe that it wasn't muslim extremists that took over those planes."
2.) which muslim extremists, the original ones that later turned up alive, or the later ones they havent found alive yet? or the pilot who couldnt even land a cessna who managed to skim along the ground in a jumbo jet at 500 mph without touching the ground? Anyway, what you SHOULD be asking yourself is if you see any reason TO believe that muslim terrorist did it: ie innocent until proven guilty (or at least you have some proof eg, an autopsy report (nope they werent on the lists) a passenger manifest name (nope they werent on the planes officially),etc)
3.) have a look at footage of the oklahoma bombing on mainstream news from the time of the attacks(if you can. It is shown on one of the 911 consp. movies): multiple reports of second and third unexploded bombs inside the building by police and fbi. Now look at what the official (or at least mainstream) story is now: one truck bomb, no mention of other explosives. (eg wikipedia). notice anything wierd? (probably not, accepting one conspiracy theory is VERY hard, as I know from experience, but once you've accepted one, you look at things from (in my honest opinion) a more balanced perspective)
4.) yes. they have been trying for years, as I believe they were planning this for years, but not all (or indeed, probably not many) of those involved in pushing the patriot act were also involved in planning 911, they just happened to be pushing for the same thing (and indeed, a misguided but good person would see patriot act as a good thing, allowing the government to crack down on those nasty terrorists, whereas someone in on these plans, in or with friends in government, would also see them as a good thing, more power is always more useful to them)
5.) fair enough (at least you see the true purpose of it)
6.)ok, fair enough, if you evacuate after the attacks/collapse, and in fact I just read an interesting story relating to the tripod II FEMA wargame which was supposed to have started sept 10, but may have actually been scheduled sept 12, with the 10th being just a mistake by a tired firefighter (I'll have to look deeper). Anyway listen to this interesting tidbit:
In an ABC News interview, Giuliani states that he was told that "the World Trade Center was gonna' collapse" (shortly before the South Tower, the first of the unprecedented collapses, exploded).
guilliani: "I.. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna' to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
Giuliani's statement that he was warned raises questions for several reasons.
* No skyscraper in North America had ever collapsed for any reason.
* Later revisions notwithstanding, the collapse took almost everyone by surprise.
* Firefighters and emergency workers did not receive warnings.
Who warned Giuliani? When did they warn him? And how did they know that the South Tower was about to come down? why has no mainstream media reporter asked these questions?
7.) firstly, how do you know he's millitary? I cant find anything on that on his tribute website. secondly your right, people do wierd things under pressure, but you cant deny that the phone call is a bit wierd. It's not proof of anything. It's just more wierdness with no decent explanation. For example, who mumbled to him
At a guess, bush family, c.rice, d rummsfeld, l.silverstein, d.cheney, mayor guilliani, high level managers in halliburton, GE, and people with decent pull with the media (eg people from General Electric that is a major defense contractor and also owns NBC!) also other members of PNAC (google it)(I think that PNAC is probably the mastermind, but thats just a semi-educated guess, no more)
How did they benefit?
well larry silverstein got 5 Billion in insurance(from a total investment of around 300 mil only weeks before the attack), making him one of the richest people in the world. He also got rid of buildings with massive asbestos related problems(up to 5% of the dust from the collapse was asbestos in some places), got the option to get out of his 99 year lease if he wanted to, and got the rights to rebuild on a famous landmark as he wishes (within reason)(also the cleanup was paid for by the federal gov : 12 billion: and he got special bonds at lower than market rates from the gov to finance the rebuild)
The bush administration got the patriot act, dept homeland defense, and permission to invade iraq (for oil/vendetta against hussein) and afghanistan (possibly to get more influence in this important area: eg to put an oil pipeline through). He also can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants (eg wiretapping civilians without a warrant, an illegal act)without getting in trouble (hes not in jail yet, is he.)
Most of those involved also have become extremely rich as defense/security contractors during the afghanistan/iraqi invasions (eg what percentage of the quarter TRILLION dollars used in the war on iraq went through defense contractors halliburton and GE?), and (for instance in the case of mayor guiliani) as security "experts"
they all got the "war" on terror, which is a MAJOR goal (for them, not us), and then we have the billions in gold under the WTC that went missing (you may or may not believe that as you will, see my other comment detailing the evidence/lack thereof related to the gold)
1) There where multiple VERY large banks storing gold under wtc. If it wasnt one of the largest gold repositories in the world, THEN WHY SAY IT?? do you think banks are poor or something? multiple mutinational banks and organisations storing gold there ok. get the point? just in case, heres text from Wikipedia, which includes more data, from an older version of wiki (I wonder why someone took out this text?),
now this is an unsubstantiated source but find me a better one and I'll reconsider the situation. Keep in mind that the amount recovered was 230 million, and that they found part of it sitting in a 10 wheel truck under the complex ready to be driven off. I'm sorry, if there wasnt a heist taking place, then WTF where they doing with the gold?
2) like I said, It matters not whether there was 1 Billion (the lowest figure I could find, from an article which itself says this was an old estimate and that there was significantly more gold than this there at the time of the attacks)or 160 Billion (since this is the conspiracy theorists estimate, I would call it an upper bound:) but as a rumour it also appears on the mainstream site I mention below ), It's STILL a frackload more than the 230mil recovered.
OK next: figures on a conspiracy site: well your right, they should be taken with a grain of salt, but its not just one conspiracy site, its many conspiracy sites(not much better) plus Wikipedia (ok a bit better) plus the new york daily mentioned below, and find me a better source and I'll be glad. Also as I keep saying, It doesnt matter if it was 1 or 1000 billion, if it was much more than the 230 mil officially recovered then we have liftoff.
Next the moving thing, well, if it was planned in advance (as it must have been, even al queda is supposed to have planned in advance) then they had who knows how long to do it, it all depends on how many people they had in on it, and the influences they had eg: if it was a small conspiracy, then they had to do it good old fashioned heist style, perhaps between the time of the crashes and the time of the collapse, this gives maybe 1 hour, using many 10 wheeled trucks (we are assuming it was the same people running 9/11 so they where well organised at the very le
Ok its strange that you mention thermodynamics, and yet seem to believe that by insulating a mixture of hot and cooler sections of material underground, that parts of it can magically suck all the heat surrounding them in to become hotter than the original peak temperatures. Heat flows from hot to cold and in an isolated system will eventually equalise. not the other way round.
Oh... thats right, it was the pressure which compressed the material to raise its temperature by hundreds of degrees. im sorry, WHA..? we are not talking about compressable gases getting squeezed to small percentages of their original size, we are talking about concrete and steel! Any temperature rise from pressure would be negligable(who cares about a few degrees, im talking many hundreds!).
As to calculus, I completed 1st year uni calculus 1 and 2 while at high school as extra credit subjects at ballarat university, and got over 90%(and no I never declared myself alpha and omega of anything, just trying to point out im not a "fucking moron").
Enough personal attacks, how about dealing with the issue at hand? ah fuck it, I can see you're not going to change your mind, and while I can tell from your writing that you are not actually a "fucking moron", you have, unfortunately, yet to overcome your brainwashing/conditioning. Good luck with that. As I said before, a good start is to watch "911 loose change", but you have to do so with an open mind, or it may do you no good(and just because you find one or two minor mistakes in the movie, as did I, doesnt ruin it's message, you only need to do a bit of your own research to see that) (hey you know what, to hell with it, who am I to ruin your blessed ignorance. Nothing to see here, move along)
thats because it WASN'T the government per se, but people who happen to be in the government, or connected to it, and/or just very rich and powerful, working together to carry out what is obviously an illegal and despicable act of treason, for the purposes of carrying out their own agenda's. It's not like bush actually won an election or somnething, he just gets the evoting machines to vote for him; hey, they're legal citizens too (apparently). With puppets on both parties generally under the thumb (kerry and bush are both in the same semi-secret society: "skull and bones", and you wondered why kerry didnt fight for the election), and many powerful contacts throughout the political and business world (and I'm talking huge multinational defense contractors and oil companies), this sort of thing is quite possible.
You're also forgetting that the U.S. government had ALREADY planned to do similar sorts of things, including terroist attacks on U.s. soil and drone airplanes being blown up, back in JFK's time, (google: "operation northwood"), so they thought it was do-able then, and now the poeple involved in this REALLY run the media, so it makes it even easier. Plus many people who you might think would have to be in it where just following orders, being misled, confused by the millitary excercises on the day, or unable to do anything about it (google john o'neill for someone that knew things and tried to make people listen, see what happened to him. )
also I wonder, did you KNOW (not just read on a conspiracy website like you might about this)about the stealth bomber all those years ago when it was first made? What about pearl harbour? have you ever looked closely at what happened there? The fact that I could write all those points earlier proving (in my mind at least) that there was a conspiracy (not muslim) says that they did muck it up, the public is just too brainwashed for it to matter.
insert "traveling at 500 miles per hour" between the words "titanium" and "would". damn it. (and by the way, please dont take offense, you seem like a cluey fellow (or gal) I'mjust a bit worked up thats all)
ok can we stop arguing meaningless semantics and accept that 10 TONNES OF FRACKING STEEL AND TITANIUM WOULD PUT A FRICKIN BIG, OR AT LEAST VISIBLE, DENT IN VIRTUALLY ANY BUILDING, REGARDLESS OF STRENGTHENING RENOVATIONS UNDERWAY ok sorry for yelling, it's just that this seems to be what many of the people who don't believe me tend to do, they pick small parts of my possible explanations to pick on, without seeing the ginormous smoking craters in the official theory, and fail to realise that I'm working with only the data "they" were unable to suppress/coverup, and STILL the official theory is impossibly unlikely. (I would even go as far as saying it was ludicrous..... no PLAID!)
in the immortal words that beavis might say, "you said boo(m)bs, hehe he he he". I even hit preview but missed it, oh well, sonic boobs, sounds like something from an anime film
thanks, some fairly unimportant details I have just trusted (unreliable) sources to have close to correct, in this case,for good reason: 3000, 2000 whatever its still a lot more then the 400-800 they averaged, and, at least in the pentagons case, after seeing the damage at the WTC, I dont think sonic boombs where not a priority concern. ON a VERY interesting related side note, here is an article showing a seismic signal of a sonic boom from a supersonic aircraft was detected near flight "93" (I think what we call flight 93 was possibly a replacement aircraft, but thats irrelevant, it was still heading towards washington) within striking distance, even though no jets were supposed to be in range! (this could be the jet that claimed to shoot down flight 93)
ok I can see your just joking (I hope your joking?) but a j3 cub is a far cry from 4 jumbo jets with passengers on board (strangely only at 20% occupancy...... yet another conincidence)
(almost) None of you seem to be getting the point. They didnt have to shoot it down. they didnt have to do anything except get the fucking planes off the ground and into the air ready to do something if necessary!!!! Also normal rules were that you scramble jet fighters on pretty much ANY sustained deviation/lack of response. The rules were changed to make the bush cheney rummsfeld have the scramble power, and bush spent 10 minutes talking about a goddamn duck or what ever the frack it was to school children instead of getting the planes off the ground after hearing "america is under attack"!!!!
see here, the FIRST LINK I FOUND ON SPEED OF A BULLET for godsake do some of your own research. Slowest speed mentioned is 180 m/s which is just unbder 400 miles an hour. The plane had just finished a powerdive and was doing over 500 miles an hour. QED. ( I didnt say fast rifle bullet, but tell me, would you rather a glancing blow from a fast rifle bullet, say 1500 mph, or a 10 tonne titanium/steel lump at 500 mph?)
just realised you mentioned the price of gold back then was $275 per ounce. was it really that low? I guess thats what war does to gold price. either way whether its 10 billion or 1 trillion, its still a SHITELOAD more than was officially recovered (230 million).
thats if they were in charge, and not just taking orders! (and anyway while I think they are all an evil lot, and wouldnt trust dubya with the keys to an outdoor shitter for fear he'd fall in while trying to pronounce the word "nukular", and remember who it was that fooled him twice, I think you have to be carefull when describing some of the other administration members as stupid. Greedy, selfish, short sighted (or just extra selfish, most likely the latter), elitist, evil, murderous, traiterous, scumsucking assholes they are, but stupid? well we're the ones that let them get away with murdering thousands of americans, and then thousands more afghani's and iraqi's for their own monetary and political benefits, I think that makes us (in general) the stupid ones (or just soft).
interesting side note article dug up while searching for an answer: dodgy transactions implying (but not proving) foreknowledge of 9/11
ok: Conspiracy theorist site telling that side of the story : up to 160 billion, 200 million recovered, other valuables possibly missing, trucks found loaded with gold, etc. Obviously not the best source, but you get the idea of the story. Now lets try to find the truth: from Wikipedia
"One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers."
Ok one of the worlds largest, so it should be in the same league as fort knox, which according to wikipedia has 147 million ounces, at $700 an ounce, which is roughly 100 billion dollars. OK so 160 billion is not unbelievable, and any less than about 50 billion would imply it wasnt one of the biggest, so I estimate between 50 and 160 billion in gold. even going on the low side of 50 billion, we have over 49 billion dollars worth of gold missing from the WTC (not a bad take for a crime, works out to works out close to $20 million per person killed, not a bad days work for a hitman. Yes I realise how offensive that is, and apologise. I'm outraged by this crime and saddened and horrified at the poeple who where murdered that day, and am trying to make a point.) see here for interesting story of finding the truck with the gold in it
"No steel/concrete skyscraper has ever had huge planes smash into them."
First of all, WT7 DID NOT have a plane crash into it, and yet still fell (symetrically and into its own footprint), next:
the empire state building had a plane crash into it: At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber accidentally crashed into the north side between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the accident[3].(wikipedia)
Regardless of this, the building was designed to withstand impacts by aircraft of this size, so it shouldn't (and indeed thats not the official explanation) have been the impact that caused the problem. if you think it was the fire, then compare this picture of the WTC fire towers where you can see a small area on one tower and a larger but still relatively small section on the other smoking (black indicating low oxygen therefore cooler fires) with a few visible flames, with this and thisimage of the windsor building in madrid, that was totally engulfed in flames from about halfway up the building to the top, and burned for 10 hours, yet didn't collapse, with only parts not including the inner support section collapsing after burning for hours, as you might expect. Note that the tower, while smaller, had a similar construction to the wtc, being a central support column and perimeter supports, and that the tower was "built using normal strength concrete and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system. It was undergoing a complete refurbishment, including the installation of various active fire prevention and resistance measures, when the fire began at around 11pm on 14 February 2005." (see here and here for more pictures and (you may say biased) info and here for a case study of the construction and result of the huge fire. Many other buildings have burned for similar or longer, and not collapsed. If you still think it's reasonable to accept three world first events on the same day at face value, in your words "then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.""(in a less offensive way, if it was conspiracy theorists saying that al queda did it with planes, and the government saying that they demolished it to make room for new towers or something, then would you still think it was rediculous?)
also if you think it was "not an ordinary fire" and that the addition of the jet fuel caused the extra heat that differentiated them from every other fire in history, then, from the debunking 911 myths on popular mechanics:
therefore apart from a hot start and some mild damage to the outer structure (which was not intended for holding up the bulk of the weight of the building but rather to resist torsional forces from wind etc, and therfore if that had failed would be much more likely to have caused an assymetrical toppling, rather than a symetrical fall), it was no different to any other fire in the history of steel/concrete buildings. So I ask again, why did three buildings fall on the same day from fire, and never before or since in history?
straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
are you saying that they didnt collapse straight down (sorry couldnt find the good footage but it's in 911 loose change) at close to free fall speeds (in fact the exploding floor front actually exceed what should be their free fall speed at some points, proving demolitions, but thats another issue) pretty much into their own footprints (wtc7before the small secondary fires (or whatever, it wasnt hit by a plane, and had no jet fuel burning in it, so why did it collapse?), wtc 7 after the demolition, I mean collapse, into its own footprint), while simultaneously being crushed to dust? becuase thats what EVERY video of the collapses shows to me.
as each floor collapses onto the floor below it, some of the kinetic energy of it's fall is used to break the next floor off and crush it, and its momentum is shared between the two (or more) floors, so that both floors would end up at an almost identical slower velocity (this is assuming the official pancake explanation). if there was so much energy liberated at each floor that it completely crushed to dust the floor below it, and enough energy (and heat) released to create the pyroclastic flows seen in the videos, then shouldnt the building have fallen slower than near freefall speed? where did this (massive) extra amount off energy come from? and if it was crushing itself to dust as it fell, why was there a sharp start to the seismic signal, trailing off, rather than a building up one, or not much of one at all as the dust fell to earth?
When a finite element analysis was done of the towers (ill try to find the link later) by an independant researcher, the only way to get the building to collapse was to lower the steel to a minute fraction of it's expected strength, and even then, the collapse takes 1 1/2 minutes! not 10 seconds. For a nice overview by Professor Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University; see this
Sorry to keep babbling but I just keep remembering new coincidences and things that dont make sense about the official explanation:
- al queda was originally trained and funded by the CIA, do you think they COMPLETELY lost contact/inside information about their plans? this is the Central intelligence agency, it's their job to keep track of these things!
- THIS VIDEO: why is the explosion perfectly symetrical around a vertical centreline? as you'd expect from an explosive detonation, such as the cordite that pentagon personel smelledbut NOT from a 500 mile an hour horizontal plane crash! we've all seen the footage of the second plane strike at the wtc, how the fireball and debris splashed out sideways from the impact WHY DOES THIS LOOK NOTHING AT ALL LIKE IT
- look at the photos of the pentagon, whole in the wall looks like a missile damage, and does not have holes or damage where the 10 tonne titanium and steel jet engines travelling at the speed of a bullet collided with it.
-I briefly mentioned the melted steel, heres more info: 6 weeks after 9/11, the cleanup crews were pulling out huge lumps (think size of a car or bigger) of white hot and sometimes still molten steel. if steel was this easy to melt (just add some kerosene i.e. jet fuel) then why did it take thousands of years for us to figure out how to smelt iron, after entering the bronze/copper age? why do we use blast furnaces, oxy acetalene torches and arc welders to melt steel, when we can just pour on some kero. I know you might say there was SO MUCH jet fuel, but thats irrelevant, there is a maximum temperature that a particular fuel can attain when burning, known as the adiabatic temperature, which is only attained in absolutley ideal conditions( ie NO HEAT LOSS, stoichiometric ratios of fuel molecules to oxygen etc), not when there is a massive steel heatsink sucking away whatever heat the remaining fuel not burnt up in the initial fireball, and office furniture could create, with limited oxygen, especially in the structural interior that would have had to have got the hottest. It is NOT dependant on the amount of fuel, only the ratio of air to fuel and lack of heat loss: adding more fuel to a fire doesnt generally make it hotter, it makes it bigger. Kerosene(jet fuel) does NOT ordinarily burn hot enough to melt steel. to do so it needs to be in almost perfect stoichiometric mixture with the air(not the case at all, see black smoke indicative of fuel rich and/or cool fire, have virtually no heat loss (not the case at all, heat was radiated away and the building was a massive heatsink) and some preheating of the air without lowering the oxygen content (ie the air has to be heated by passing hot surfaces, not by being in a fire on a lower floor, as the lower fire lowers the oxygen level and therefore makes the latter fire COOLER if any heat was lost in between the two (which it would be)
- please look at the following diagram showing HOW HUGE the centre support column of the building was wtc and then look at the following EXTREMELY MISLEADING diagram given by the bbc to explain the collapse misleading page
ok enough now, for more info, like I said before, watch 911 loose change(and other similar videos) on google video and keep an open mind.
Nice, mark me flamebait without reading through and coming up with a coherant argument against what I'm saying.
Obviously some of what I say is probabally not correct, but for those of you who like to use occcam's razor to debunk conspiracies: whats more likely: a number of suicide hijackers (many who subsequently turned up alive) manage to hijack four jet airplanes with 100% success rate,
taking over from vietnam veterans and other veteran millitary pilots, without the pilots being able to call for help or set off warning buttons,
using only box cutters
manage to fly the planes extremely accurately into 3 of 4 targets despite failing to land a cesna,
yet for some reason seem to be minimising casualties (20% average plane occupancy, strikes near top of building so more people can escape, strikes on unoccupied section of pentagon: only civilian deaths at pentagon (I think, maybe a few low level millitary)
on the same day as multiple millitary exercises which make it all possible
evade being shot down for an hour or so each, manage to fly into the most secure building on earth which has its own automatic anti aircraft missile battery which must have been deliberately turned off that day
then 3 steel and concrete buildings completely collapse symetrically into their own footprint from a few small* fires (*see other fires that COMPLETELY ENGULFED BUILDINGS yet they didnt fall down for my definition of large fires) despite this never having occured before, even once, let alone three times, in the history of steel and concrete skyscrapers
then all the witnesses and stories that dont match up (from various reliable witnesses such as ex or present fbi, military, fire chiefs/fighters, police etc etc etc) are somehow just hallucinations, (see multiple explosions, wrong planes, black boxes, debris from flight 93, flgiht 93 news item of it landing after it was supposed to have crashed etc)
the fact that no real investigation (compare funding for every other terrorist attack/emergency investigation with funding for this one, ask why it took over 400 days to even set up, after most of the evidence had been destroyed)was ever officially carried out,
and the HUNDREDS of other huge irregularities, inconsistancies and impossibilities. (eg how did the collapse cause a sharp:i.e. wrong shape for collapse, right for explosion; 2.4 richter signal at a fairly distant seismometer, despite 80000 pound tnt detonations at a nearby mine causing only 2.0 signals)
this is much more likely....(erm yeah ok, here want to buy a bridge) than a government who has done this sort of thing before (by that i mean us gov, not bush admin in particular)(of course Ill let you disagree with that one, cant be bothered getting into it to prove it, but look up pearl harbour, bay of tonkin?, abandoned babies from incubators (desert storm), etc) and has OFFICIALY RELEASED DOCUMENTS that Prove they were planning a similar "false flag", "attack our own people to get support for a war" operation (google "operation northwood") in the past, so therefore are capable of it and thought it was a viable option(or at least some did, not JFK), and had many sources of BILLIONS of DOLLARS (google "wtc gold repository", see iraq war costs, oil company profits, larry silverstein becoming one of the richest people on earth due to insurance etc) in motivation to do so,
along with personal(get the power to get back at sadamn for instance)/political (do i need to explain?)/idealogical (google PNAC, "a new pearl harbour", and pay attention to the people in this organisation) motivations setting into motion a plan planned for many years, using the huge resources at their availiablity. If you think that the attack was unexpected, as a starting point, watch this amazing prior to 911 premonition pilot episode of a show called "the lone gunmen" this video was aired in march of 2001
How did they plant the explosives: the WTC had 12 hour shifts of security with bomb sniffer dogs as standard , RIGHT UP UNTILL A FEW WEEKS BEFORE 9/11 when the bomb sniffer dogs were pulled out of the building and securtiy lowered. HOW? as I said, pres. bush's brother was on the board at the security firm looking after the WTC and united airlines, his contract ran out on the DAY of 9/11
since this was planned long in advance, there is also the possiblility of some setup work being done during the cleanup of the original trade centre bombing, there was rumours of strange workers/activities at the time, which could also be explained in many less conspiratorial ways of course (obviously no explosives of the type that dogs would notice could be placed then, but i wonder if the dogs could smell thermite (aluminium and rust) mixed into say fireproofing sprayon material?
Wouldnt it have required a MASSIVE (therefore almost impossible) conspiracy?): Not according to many researches. It may require: various influential bush administration members (dick cheney, cond. rice and rummsfeld among them) , other bush family members such as the one running security and sitting on the board for the insurance company for the WTC (and security for United airlines), a few high level insiders in the CIA/FBI/SS, larry silverstein owner of WTC, and a few others. The planes could (and most likely were) remote controlled ( think this is not possible? we have had remote controlled planes since the 40's, tesla had a remote controlled boat over 100 years ago, we can remote control spacecraft into comets and distant planets, why the hell couldnbt we control a plane into a building)most likely by overtaking their onboard automatic landing/flight controls or similar, by introduction of a hidden program triggered by who knows what, as an example, a program which kicks in on 9/11 at a particular flying height. Passengers where either NOT onboard, being mostly government agents wanting to destroy old identities and create new ones, who had already excited in a swap manouver, or knocked out by gas (quite possible, a gas was used by the russians to end a hostage situation which knocks out people before they can respond or even know whats happening)
various wierd ocurences, like a newspaper reporting flight 93 landing at an airport after the suposed crash, back up sections of this (ie swapped plane)
one VERY IMPORTANT THING to keep in mind when dealing with this is : the government WANTS conspiracy theorists to be confused, have conflicting stories, and therefore be less likely to be taken seriously keep this in mind when trying to determine what motive behind some of the actions required for this to be a conspiracy, eg the pentagon missile: 40 witnesses saw a plane (although not the same plane: 2 different sorst of jet airliner and a private bizjet), yet conspiracy theorists are saying it was a bomb or missile: government releases footage showing an explosion symetrical around a vertical centre line, not splayed out like should have happened from a jet crash at 500miles an hour that was so hot it vaporised a plane (er,...right vaporised titanium and steel jet engines? whatever), and NOT SHOWING a jet airliner (the white nose of something too small/long and skinny to be a jet, but which conspiracy theorists (including me) think looks more like a missile) thus contradicting their own story! this makes the conspiracy theorists think it must be real (since it contradicts the gov story), and that the gov didnt want to release it, (same with the five frames of this footage that was "leaked" years ago) and therefore there must be a missile, while most people say "if so, what about the 40 witnesses, and so call the conspiracy theorists nuts!
never mind that multiple trained military personel at the pentagon smelled cordite, an explosive, not jet fuel, there was virtually no trace of the 100 tonnes of plane that crashed there, the hole in the inner section where somethin
Unfortunately (for most of the world including most of americans not in on it) there was a conspiracy on 9/11. If (and it's a big if) there were muslim terrorists involved, they were being used to cover up the MUCH larger plan designed with the following motives in mind:
1) allow the passing of the patriot act and other "anti-torrorist" unconstitutional bullshit laws
2) allow bush and (his puppet masters) to get permission to do pretty much whatever the frack he wants: invade multiple countries without UN approval, spy on US citizens without any warrant, strike down any court case with bullshit claims that it threatens national security etc (you may say he didnt get permission to spy, but he still did it, and even though its illegal, and he has admitted to it, he is not in jail or punished, therefore he got away with it/was allowed to do it)
3) allow the owner of the complex mr silverstein to claim $7 billion (he got $5 billion) in insurance for a property he had invested somewhere between 100 -300 million in: not a bad return on investment for owning the place for only 6 weeks before 9/11! (meanwhile he also solved his problem of how to remove the many tonnes of asbestos fireproofing in the towers that was causing health reg problems, which would have cost MANY millions of dollars to properly remove, and got the rights to rebuild if he wanted to, or get out of any lease obligations from his 99 year lease if he wanted to)
4) MAJOR motive: increase millitary spending/use wars to help bush's saudi oil buddies (iraq war is going to end up costing more than 1 TRILLIAN dollars US, how much of that went to halliburton and other defense contractors bush is friendly with, and how much of that was used to by massively overpriced crap (thousands of dollars for simple items like hammers, toilet seats etc) meanwhile US soldiers in iraq dont all even get supplied with bulletproof vests or properly armoured vehicles, and lose insurance benefits if they buy their own! The business of the poeple who plotted 9/11 is WAR and OIL
5) did you know that there was a MASSIVE gold repository under the WTC? mayor guiliani recovered 200 million in gold supposedly, however there was supposed to be at least a few BILLION in gold under there, and some calculations put as much as 150 BILLION in gold under there before 9/11!! who has it now? (abandoned trucks where found under there with gold in them, as if someone had been taking it and left before the towers collapsed, and hadnt got back yet)
So- we have many motives for 9/11 unrelated to muslim terrorists, including many billions in gold and cash and contracts. Thats a LOT of bribes/hits/ shut you ups. Of course motive is not enough, we need opportunity and evidence: which we have (so much I could never possibly list it all, but here are some of the kickers):
- No steel/concrete skyscraper has EVER completely or even nearly completely collapse from fire before or after 9/11 despite some haveing been COMPLETELY engulfed in flames for MANY hours (not just a small smoking/flames area for 1 hour), yet it supposedly happened 3 times on 9/11!! despite the smoke being black and sooty ( not enough air/low temperature flame or both) and taped radio of a Fire Brigade CHIEF saying theres two small fires that could be put out with only two hoses, right before it collapsed
-related: video/pictures of PEOPLE HANGING OUT OF THE GASH IN THE BUILDING where temperatures hot enough to melt steel are supposed to be present!!
- hydrocarbon (jet fuel/carpet/paper/wood etc) flames CANNOT reach the > 1500 C temperature needed to melt steel without an almost perfect fuel air mix( not present, see black smoke) AND preheating of the air (not impossible that some preheating occured, however take one look at the fires on the video I mention at the end of this post, in other buildings which DIDNT collapse, and compare, and you should agree that this wasnt what happened here). Most inside fires struggles to get past 700 C and only reach 1000C for brief periods at flashover.
- ar
Slashdot Mirror
and these buried (and therefore oxygen starved and therefore cooler burning) fires melted the steel?
But the entire structure will stay hotter longer than it would if it were exposed to convection or able to radiate heat away. The way you're talking, the only way to have the steel molten weeks after the collapse is if the building was taken down by nuclear fission.
Hey, I could put words in your mouth as well (but wont).
1) molten steel seen before collapse (see earlier post of mine)
2) Large areas of molten steel found in cleanup
2) Heat flows from hot to cold, whether insulated (by rubble) or not. Insulation affects the time involved not the direction of the heat flow
4) lack of massive, forced, highly preheated air flow, through large underground fires, with sufficient fuel precludes the possibility of widespread large molten steel deposit formation after the collapse, as found in the cleanup
therefore the steel must have already been melted, as by large amounts of thermite or other unexplained extreme heat sources.
That's still less than half of what your typical undergraduate engineering degree requires, and that still doesn't have more than the most basic examination of mechanics. You make unfounded claims about the design of the buildings as well as what a "normal" structural failure looks like, having neither the data nor the experience to back up your claims. If anything, the way you point to your IQ, your unrelated degree, and your "DE for Dummies" coursework as foundation for your claims that run counter to people who do this for a living gives you several points on the Crackpot Index, if not making you a "fucking moron" outright.
I'm sorry if I offended you by defending myself from the personal attacks of someone who didnt want to deal with the issues at hand. Perhaps next time I will just lay down and take it in the ass, like your mum did last night (sorry but I do have a limit, if you refuse to refrain from personal attacks, why should I?). Perhaps, mr guppy sir, you'd like to explain how in your job as national structural engineering, metallurgical failure and general wisdom advisor, you have infinite knowledge on all relevant subjects and anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a moron? Pointing out your near-complete lack of credentials (or the way you believe they are credentials) isn't an ad hominem attack.
I'm sorry, I wasnt pointing out my credentials (something you have also failed to do, though you seem to think its so important), I was pointing out that I do, actually, have a decently functioning brain, and can, in fact, use my limited knowledge and pitiful scientific training to analyse a situation and come to a logical conclusion; something many call "common sense"; which is generally lacking in "fucking morons", yourself excluded of course. Also, just so you know, "ad hominem : A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute"(google). Lucky that wasnt what you were doing, isnt it?
"You're the one who thinks the images Hollywood has given them of collapsing buildings is the way things are "supposed" to be, and yet I'm the brainwashed one?"
You're right. I did say that the collapses should have looked like the movies. Somewhere. Im sure I said it... didn't I? oh thats right, I was discussing the topic and thinking for myself, while you were making stuff up and putting words in my mouth. Again. Ah well, maybe I did say it and I've brainwashed myself so much I cant see it.
anyway, thats it, no more defenses of my arguments (although I might discuss with people willing to think) for a while, it's tiring me out. If all i've said has not yet convinced you, one more reply wont help.
hehe your right, prolly shouldnt have bolded that whole sentence up, although perhaps the reason theres so many is that it makes sense?. also, I'm not saying the two towers didnt damage anynearby buildings (they were very tall buildings, I would be surprised if a job that good was even possible, even without having to hide that you were doing it. ) but just watch the WT7 collapse, and then tell me how such symmetry is possible from random damage.
1.) good, we have a starting point (but even ignoring the commentary, the footage is convincing enough)
"I see no reason to believe that it wasn't muslim extremists that took over those planes."
2.) which muslim extremists, the original ones that later turned up alive, or the later ones they havent found alive yet? or the pilot who couldnt even land a cessna who managed to skim along the ground in a jumbo jet at 500 mph without touching the ground? Anyway, what you SHOULD be asking yourself is if you see any reason TO believe that muslim terrorist did it: ie innocent until proven guilty (or at least you have some proof eg, an autopsy report (nope they werent on the lists) a passenger manifest name (nope they werent on the planes officially),etc)
3.) have a look at footage of the oklahoma bombing on mainstream news from the time of the attacks(if you can. It is shown on one of the 911 consp. movies): multiple reports of second and third unexploded bombs inside the building by police and fbi. Now look at what the official (or at least mainstream) story is now: one truck bomb, no mention of other explosives. (eg wikipedia). notice anything wierd? (probably not, accepting one conspiracy theory is VERY hard, as I know from experience, but once you've accepted one, you look at things from (in my honest opinion) a more balanced perspective)
4.) yes. they have been trying for years, as I believe they were planning this for years, but not all (or indeed, probably not many) of those involved in pushing the patriot act were also involved in planning 911, they just happened to be pushing for the same thing (and indeed, a misguided but good person would see patriot act as a good thing, allowing the government to crack down on those nasty terrorists, whereas someone in on these plans, in or with friends in government, would also see them as a good thing, more power is always more useful to them)
5.) fair enough (at least you see the true purpose of it)
6.)ok, fair enough, if you evacuate after the attacks/collapse, and in fact I just read an interesting story relating to the tripod II FEMA wargame which was supposed to have started sept 10, but may have actually been scheduled sept 12, with the 10th being just a mistake by a tired firefighter (I'll have to look deeper). Anyway listen to this interesting tidbit:
In an ABC News interview, Giuliani states that he was told that "the World Trade Center was gonna' collapse" (shortly before the South Tower, the first of the unprecedented collapses, exploded).
guilliani: "I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna' to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
Giuliani's statement that he was warned raises questions for several reasons.
* No skyscraper in North America had ever collapsed for any reason.
* Later revisions notwithstanding, the collapse took almost everyone by surprise.
* Firefighters and emergency workers did not receive warnings.
Who warned Giuliani? When did they warn him? And how did they know that the South Tower was about to come down? why has no mainstream media reporter asked these questions?
7.) firstly, how do you know he's millitary? I cant find anything on that on his tribute website. secondly your right, people do wierd things under pressure, but you cant deny that the phone call is a bit wierd. It's not proof of anything. It's just more wierdness with no decent explanation. For example, who mumbled to him
you mean like the massive steel and concrete core of the WTC towers? WTF are you talkin bout?
At a guess, bush family, c.rice, d rummsfeld, l.silverstein, d.cheney, mayor guilliani, high level managers in halliburton, GE, and people with decent pull with the media (eg people from General Electric that is a major defense contractor and also owns NBC!) also other members of PNAC (google it)(I think that PNAC is probably the mastermind, but thats just a semi-educated guess, no more)
How did they benefit?
well larry silverstein got 5 Billion in insurance(from a total investment of around 300 mil only weeks before the attack), making him one of the richest people in the world. He also got rid of buildings with massive asbestos related problems(up to 5% of the dust from the collapse was asbestos in some places), got the option to get out of his 99 year lease if he wanted to, and got the rights to rebuild on a famous landmark as he wishes (within reason)(also the cleanup was paid for by the federal gov : 12 billion: and he got special bonds at lower than market rates from the gov to finance the rebuild)
The bush administration got the patriot act, dept homeland defense, and permission to invade iraq (for oil/vendetta against hussein) and afghanistan (possibly to get more influence in this important area: eg to put an oil pipeline through). He also can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants (eg wiretapping civilians without a warrant, an illegal act)without getting in trouble (hes not in jail yet, is he.)
Most of those involved also have become extremely rich as defense/security contractors during the afghanistan/iraqi invasions (eg what percentage of the quarter TRILLION dollars used in the war on iraq went through defense contractors halliburton and GE?), and (for instance in the case of mayor guiliani) as security "experts"
they all got the "war" on terror, which is a MAJOR goal (for them, not us), and then we have the billions in gold under the WTC that went missing (you may or may not believe that as you will, see my other comment detailing the evidence/lack thereof related to the gold)
One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers. One source estimates the 1993 value of the gold at one billion dollars, believed to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. That same source claims that when the World Trade Center was destroyed, the amount of gold "far exceed[ed] the 1993 levels." The gold was finally recovered in its entirety in late 2001."
now this is an unsubstantiated source but find me a better one and I'll reconsider the situation. Keep in mind that the amount recovered was 230 million, and that they found part of it sitting in a 10 wheel truck under the complex ready to be driven off. I'm sorry, if there wasnt a heist taking place, then WTF where they doing with the gold?
2) like I said, It matters not whether there was 1 Billion (the lowest figure I could find, from an article which itself says this was an old estimate and that there was significantly more gold than this there at the time of the attacks)or 160 Billion (since this is the conspiracy theorists estimate, I would call it an upper bound :) but as a rumour it also appears on the mainstream site I mention below ), It's STILL a frackload more than the 230mil recovered.
Like I said, for it to be considered "one of the largest gold repositories in the world" It should be in a similar ball park to any other large gold repositories I can find, eg, within 1 order of magnitude. I already mentioned fort knox, ok heres the federal reserve, in new york, interestingly only a few blocks from WTC (I dont think this is the one the conspiracy theorists are talking about, but I could be wrong): "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York maintains an underground vault in Manhattan. The largest gold repository in the world, larger even than Fort Knox, it is 80 feet (25 m) beneath the street and holds $90 billion worth of gold bullion (approx 5,000 tonnes at 2006 prices). The gold is owned by many foreign nations, central banks and official international organizations." ok so right there you have a similar collaboration of organizations storing gold. and since it has more than fort knox, I say again, if the WTC repository was one of the largest, IT SHOULD BE WITHIN ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. so a lower bound of about 10 billion
OK next: figures on a conspiracy site: well your right, they should be taken with a grain of salt, but its not just one conspiracy site, its many conspiracy sites(not much better) plus Wikipedia (ok a bit better) plus the new york daily mentioned below, and find me a better source and I'll be glad. Also as I keep saying, It doesnt matter if it was 1 or 1000 billion, if it was much more than the 230 mil officially recovered then we have liftoff.
Next the moving thing, well, if it was planned in advance (as it must have been, even al queda is supposed to have planned in advance) then they had who knows how long to do it, it all depends on how many people they had in on it, and the influences they had eg: if it was a small conspiracy, then they had to do it good old fashioned heist style, perhaps between the time of the crashes and the time of the collapse, this gives maybe 1 hour, using many 10 wheeled trucks (we are assuming it was the same people running 9/11 so they where well organised at the very le
with regards to the heat equation:Solutions of the heat equation are characterized by a gradual smoothing of the initial temperature distribution by the flow of heat from warmer to colder areas of an object.". thats wierd, no where does it mention areas exceeding the initial maximum temperatures, nor "it's easier to get hotter for longer periods of time" (initially cooler sections can and will obviously be heated by nearby hotter sections, thus COOLING the hotter sections and lowering the maximum temperature in/raising the lowest temperature in, i.e, "gradually smoothing", the temperature distribution.
As to calculus, I completed 1st year uni calculus 1 and 2 while at high school as extra credit subjects at ballarat university, and got over 90%(and no I never declared myself alpha and omega of anything, just trying to point out im not a "fucking moron").
Enough personal attacks, how about dealing with the issue at hand? ah fuck it, I can see you're not going to change your mind, and while I can tell from your writing that you are not actually a "fucking moron", you have, unfortunately, yet to overcome your brainwashing/conditioning. Good luck with that. As I said before, a good start is to watch "911 loose change", but you have to do so with an open mind, or it may do you no good(and just because you find one or two minor mistakes in the movie, as did I, doesnt ruin it's message, you only need to do a bit of your own research to see that) (hey you know what, to hell with it, who am I to ruin your blessed ignorance. Nothing to see here, move along)
You're also forgetting that the U.S. government had ALREADY planned to do similar sorts of things, including terroist attacks on U.s. soil and drone airplanes being blown up, back in JFK's time, (google: "operation northwood"), so they thought it was do-able then, and now the poeple involved in this REALLY run the media, so it makes it even easier. Plus many people who you might think would have to be in it where just following orders, being misled, confused by the millitary excercises on the day, or unable to do anything about it (google john o'neill for someone that knew things and tried to make people listen, see what happened to him. )
also I wonder, did you KNOW (not just read on a conspiracy website like you might about this)about the stealth bomber all those years ago when it was first made? What about pearl harbour? have you ever looked closely at what happened there? The fact that I could write all those points earlier proving (in my mind at least) that there was a conspiracy (not muslim) says that they did muck it up, the public is just too brainwashed for it to matter.
insert "traveling at 500 miles per hour" between the words "titanium" and "would". damn it. (and by the way, please dont take offense, you seem like a cluey fellow (or gal) I'mjust a bit worked up thats all)
ok can we stop arguing meaningless semantics and accept that 10 TONNES OF FRACKING STEEL AND TITANIUM WOULD PUT A FRICKIN BIG, OR AT LEAST VISIBLE, DENT IN VIRTUALLY ANY BUILDING, REGARDLESS OF STRENGTHENING RENOVATIONS UNDERWAY ok sorry for yelling, it's just that this seems to be what many of the people who don't believe me tend to do, they pick small parts of my possible explanations to pick on, without seeing the ginormous smoking craters in the official theory, and fail to realise that I'm working with only the data "they" were unable to suppress/coverup, and STILL the official theory is impossibly unlikely. (I would even go as far as saying it was ludicrous..... no PLAID!)
in the immortal words that beavis might say, "you said boo(m)bs, hehe he he he". I even hit preview but missed it, oh well, sonic boobs, sounds like something from an anime film
thanks, some fairly unimportant details I have just trusted (unreliable) sources to have close to correct, in this case,for good reason: 3000, 2000 whatever its still a lot more then the 400-800 they averaged, and, at least in the pentagons case, after seeing the damage at the WTC, I dont think sonic boombs where not a priority concern. ON a VERY interesting related side note, here is an article showing a seismic signal of a sonic boom from a supersonic aircraft was detected near flight "93" (I think what we call flight 93 was possibly a replacement aircraft, but thats irrelevant, it was still heading towards washington) within striking distance, even though no jets were supposed to be in range! (this could be the jet that claimed to shoot down flight 93)
ok I can see your just joking (I hope your joking?) but a j3 cub is a far cry from 4 jumbo jets with passengers on board (strangely only at 20% occupancy ...... yet another conincidence)
(almost) None of you seem to be getting the point. They didnt have to shoot it down. they didnt have to do anything except get the fucking planes off the ground and into the air ready to do something if necessary!!!! Also normal rules were that you scramble jet fighters on pretty much ANY sustained deviation/lack of response. The rules were changed to make the bush cheney rummsfeld have the scramble power, and bush spent 10 minutes talking about a goddamn duck or what ever the frack it was to school children instead of getting the planes off the ground after hearing "america is under attack"!!!!
see here, the FIRST LINK I FOUND ON SPEED OF A BULLET for godsake do some of your own research. Slowest speed mentioned is 180 m/s which is just unbder 400 miles an hour. The plane had just finished a powerdive and was doing over 500 miles an hour. QED. ( I didnt say fast rifle bullet, but tell me, would you rather a glancing blow from a fast rifle bullet, say 1500 mph, or a 10 tonne titanium/steel lump at 500 mph?)
just realised you mentioned the price of gold back then was $275 per ounce. was it really that low? I guess thats what war does to gold price. either way whether its 10 billion or 1 trillion, its still a SHITELOAD more than was officially recovered (230 million).
On second thought, maybe I WOULD trust him with the keys to an outdoor shitter...... :) with a locking toilet seat.
thats if they were in charge, and not just taking orders! (and anyway while I think they are all an evil lot, and wouldnt trust dubya with the keys to an outdoor shitter for fear he'd fall in while trying to pronounce the word "nukular", and remember who it was that fooled him twice, I think you have to be carefull when describing some of the other administration members as stupid. Greedy, selfish, short sighted (or just extra selfish, most likely the latter), elitist, evil, murderous, traiterous, scumsucking assholes they are, but stupid? well we're the ones that let them get away with murdering thousands of americans, and then thousands more afghani's and iraqi's for their own monetary and political benefits, I think that makes us (in general) the stupid ones (or just soft).
ok: Conspiracy theorist site telling that side of the story : up to 160 billion, 200 million recovered, other valuables possibly missing, trucks found loaded with gold, etc. Obviously not the best source, but you get the idea of the story. Now lets try to find the truth: from Wikipedia
"One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center, owned by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers."
Ok one of the worlds largest, so it should be in the same league as fort knox, which according to wikipedia has 147 million ounces, at $700 an ounce, which is roughly 100 billion dollars. OK so 160 billion is not unbelievable, and any less than about 50 billion would imply it wasnt one of the biggest, so I estimate between 50 and 160 billion in gold. even going on the low side of 50 billion, we have over 49 billion dollars worth of gold missing from the WTC (not a bad take for a crime, works out to works out close to $20 million per person killed, not a bad days work for a hitman. Yes I realise how offensive that is, and apologise. I'm outraged by this crime and saddened and horrified at the poeple who where murdered that day, and am trying to make a point.) see here for interesting story of finding the truck with the gold in it
First of all, WT7 DID NOT have a plane crash into it, and yet still fell (symetrically and into its own footprint), next:
the empire state building had a plane crash into it: At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber accidentally crashed into the north side between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the accident[3].(wikipedia)
Regardless of this, the building was designed to withstand impacts by aircraft of this size, so it shouldn't (and indeed thats not the official explanation) have been the impact that caused the problem. if you think it was the fire, then compare this picture of the WTC fire towers where you can see a small area on one tower and a larger but still relatively small section on the other smoking (black indicating low oxygen therefore cooler fires) with a few visible flames, with this and thisimage of the windsor building in madrid, that was totally engulfed in flames from about halfway up the building to the top, and burned for 10 hours, yet didn't collapse, with only parts not including the inner support section collapsing after burning for hours, as you might expect. Note that the tower, while smaller, had a similar construction to the wtc, being a central support column and perimeter supports, and that the tower was "built using normal strength concrete and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system. It was undergoing a complete refurbishment, including the installation of various active fire prevention and resistance measures, when the fire began at around 11pm on 14 February 2005." (see here and here for more pictures and (you may say biased) info and here for a case study of the construction and result of the huge fire. Many other buildings have burned for similar or longer, and not collapsed. If you still think it's reasonable to accept three world first events on the same day at face value, in your words "then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.""(in a less offensive way, if it was conspiracy theorists saying that al queda did it with planes, and the government saying that they demolished it to make room for new towers or something, then would you still think it was rediculous?)
also if you think it was "not an ordinary fire" and that the addition of the jet fuel caused the extra heat that differentiated them from every other fire in history, then, from the debunking 911 myths on popular mechanics:
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsiblefor the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
therefore apart from a hot start and some mild damage to the outer structure (which was not intended for holding up the bulk of the weight of the building but rather to resist torsional forces from wind etc, and therfore if that had failed would be much more likely to have caused an assymetrical toppling, rather than a symetrical fall), it was no different to any other fire in the history of steel/concrete buildings. So I ask again, why did three buildings fall on the same day from fire, and never before or since in history?
straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
"Peter Tully, presid
as each floor collapses onto the floor below it, some of the kinetic energy of it's fall is used to break the next floor off and crush it, and its momentum is shared between the two (or more) floors, so that both floors would end up at an almost identical slower velocity (this is assuming the official pancake explanation). if there was so much energy liberated at each floor that it completely crushed to dust the floor below it, and enough energy (and heat) released to create the pyroclastic flows seen in the videos, then shouldnt the building have fallen slower than near freefall speed? where did this (massive) extra amount off energy come from? and if it was crushing itself to dust as it fell, why was there a sharp start to the seismic signal, trailing off, rather than a building up one, or not much of one at all as the dust fell to earth?
When a finite element analysis was done of the towers (ill try to find the link later) by an independant researcher, the only way to get the building to collapse was to lower the steel to a minute fraction of it's expected strength, and even then, the collapse takes 1 1/2 minutes! not 10 seconds. For a nice overview by Professor Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University; see this
- THIS VIDEO: why is the explosion perfectly symetrical around a vertical centreline? as you'd expect from an explosive detonation, such as the cordite that pentagon personel smelledbut NOT from a 500 mile an hour horizontal plane crash! we've all seen the footage of the second plane strike at the wtc, how the fireball and debris splashed out sideways from the impact WHY DOES THIS LOOK NOTHING AT ALL LIKE IT
- look at the photos of the pentagon, whole in the wall looks like a missile damage, and does not have holes or damage where the 10 tonne titanium and steel jet engines travelling at the speed of a bullet collided with it.
-I briefly mentioned the melted steel, heres more info: 6 weeks after 9/11, the cleanup crews were pulling out huge lumps (think size of a car or bigger) of white hot and sometimes still molten steel. if steel was this easy to melt (just add some kerosene i.e. jet fuel) then why did it take thousands of years for us to figure out how to smelt iron, after entering the bronze/copper age? why do we use blast furnaces, oxy acetalene torches and arc welders to melt steel, when we can just pour on some kero. I know you might say there was SO MUCH jet fuel, but thats irrelevant, there is a maximum temperature that a particular fuel can attain when burning, known as the adiabatic temperature, which is only attained in absolutley ideal conditions( ie NO HEAT LOSS, stoichiometric ratios of fuel molecules to oxygen etc), not when there is a massive steel heatsink sucking away whatever heat the remaining fuel not burnt up in the initial fireball, and office furniture could create, with limited oxygen, especially in the structural interior that would have had to have got the hottest. It is NOT dependant on the amount of fuel, only the ratio of air to fuel and lack of heat loss: adding more fuel to a fire doesnt generally make it hotter, it makes it bigger. Kerosene(jet fuel) does NOT ordinarily burn hot enough to melt steel. to do so it needs to be in almost perfect stoichiometric mixture with the air(not the case at all, see black smoke indicative of fuel rich and/or cool fire, have virtually no heat loss (not the case at all, heat was radiated away and the building was a massive heatsink) and some preheating of the air without lowering the oxygen content (ie the air has to be heated by passing hot surfaces, not by being in a fire on a lower floor, as the lower fire lowers the oxygen level and therefore makes the latter fire COOLER if any heat was lost in between the two (which it would be)
- please look at the following diagram showing HOW HUGE the centre support column of the building was wtc and then look at the following EXTREMELY MISLEADING diagram given by the bbc to explain the collapse misleading page ok enough now, for more info, like I said before, watch 911 loose change(and other similar videos) on google video and keep an open mind.
Obviously some of what I say is probabally not correct, but for those of you who like to use occcam's razor to debunk conspiracies: whats more likely: a number of suicide hijackers (many who subsequently turned up alive) manage to hijack four jet airplanes with 100% success rate,
taking over from vietnam veterans and other veteran millitary pilots, without the pilots being able to call for help or set off warning buttons,
using only box cutters
manage to fly the planes extremely accurately into 3 of 4 targets despite failing to land a cesna,
yet for some reason seem to be minimising casualties (20% average plane occupancy, strikes near top of building so more people can escape, strikes on unoccupied section of pentagon: only civilian deaths at pentagon (I think, maybe a few low level millitary)
on the same day as multiple millitary exercises which make it all possible
evade being shot down for an hour or so each, manage to fly into the most secure building on earth which has its own automatic anti aircraft missile battery which must have been deliberately turned off that day
then 3 steel and concrete buildings completely collapse symetrically into their own footprint from a few small* fires (*see other fires that COMPLETELY ENGULFED BUILDINGS yet they didnt fall down for my definition of large fires) despite this never having occured before, even once, let alone three times, in the history of steel and concrete skyscrapers
then all the witnesses and stories that dont match up (from various reliable witnesses such as ex or present fbi, military, fire chiefs/fighters, police etc etc etc) are somehow just hallucinations, (see multiple explosions, wrong planes, black boxes, debris from flight 93, flgiht 93 news item of it landing after it was supposed to have crashed etc)
the fact that no real investigation (compare funding for every other terrorist attack/emergency investigation with funding for this one, ask why it took over 400 days to even set up, after most of the evidence had been destroyed)was ever officially carried out,
and the HUNDREDS of other huge irregularities, inconsistancies and impossibilities. (eg how did the collapse cause a sharp:i.e. wrong shape for collapse, right for explosion; 2.4 richter signal at a fairly distant seismometer, despite 80000 pound tnt detonations at a nearby mine causing only 2.0 signals)
this is much more likely ....(erm yeah ok, here want to buy a bridge) than a government who has done this sort of thing before (by that i mean us gov, not bush admin in particular)(of course Ill let you disagree with that one, cant be bothered getting into it to prove it, but look up pearl harbour, bay of tonkin?, abandoned babies from incubators (desert storm), etc) and has OFFICIALY RELEASED DOCUMENTS that Prove they were planning a similar "false flag", "attack our own people to get support for a war" operation (google "operation northwood") in the past, so therefore are capable of it and thought it was a viable option(or at least some did, not JFK), and had many sources of BILLIONS of DOLLARS (google "wtc gold repository", see iraq war costs, oil company profits, larry silverstein becoming one of the richest people on earth due to insurance etc) in motivation to do so,
along with personal(get the power to get back at sadamn for instance)/political (do i need to explain?) /idealogical (google PNAC, "a new pearl harbour", and pay attention to the people in this organisation) motivations setting into motion a plan planned for many years, using the huge resources at their availiablity. If you think that the attack was unexpected, as a starting point, watch this amazing prior to 911 premonition pilot episode of a show called "the lone gunmen" this video was aired in march of 2001
How did they plant the explosives:
the WTC had 12 hour shifts of security with bomb sniffer dogs as standard , RIGHT UP UNTILL A FEW WEEKS BEFORE 9/11 when the bomb sniffer dogs were pulled out of the building and securtiy lowered. HOW? as I said, pres. bush's brother was on the board at the security firm looking after the WTC and united airlines, his contract ran out on the DAY of 9/11
since this was planned long in advance, there is also the possiblility of some setup work being done during the cleanup of the original trade centre bombing, there was rumours of strange workers/activities at the time, which could also be explained in many less conspiratorial ways of course (obviously no explosives of the type that dogs would notice could be placed then, but i wonder if the dogs could smell thermite (aluminium and rust) mixed into say fireproofing sprayon material?
Wouldnt it have required a MASSIVE (therefore almost impossible) conspiracy?): Not according to many researches. It may require: various influential bush administration members (dick cheney, cond. rice and rummsfeld among them) , other bush family members such as the one running security and sitting on the board for the insurance company for the WTC (and security for United airlines), a few high level insiders in the CIA/FBI/SS, larry silverstein owner of WTC, and a few others. The planes could (and most likely were) remote controlled ( think this is not possible? we have had remote controlled planes since the 40's, tesla had a remote controlled boat over 100 years ago, we can remote control spacecraft into comets and distant planets, why the hell couldnbt we control a plane into a building)most likely by overtaking their onboard automatic landing/flight controls or similar, by introduction of a hidden program triggered by who knows what, as an example, a program which kicks in on 9/11 at a particular flying height. Passengers where either NOT onboard, being mostly government agents wanting to destroy old identities and create new ones, who had already excited in a swap manouver, or knocked out by gas (quite possible, a gas was used by the russians to end a hostage situation which knocks out people before they can respond or even know whats happening)
various wierd ocurences, like a newspaper reporting flight 93 landing at an airport after the suposed crash, back up sections of this (ie swapped plane)
one VERY IMPORTANT THING to keep in mind when dealing with this is : the government WANTS conspiracy theorists to be confused, have conflicting stories, and therefore be less likely to be taken seriously keep this in mind when trying to determine what motive behind some of the actions required for this to be a conspiracy, eg the pentagon missile: 40 witnesses saw a plane (although not the same plane: 2 different sorst of jet airliner and a private bizjet), yet conspiracy theorists are saying it was a bomb or missile: government releases footage showing an explosion symetrical around a vertical centre line, not splayed out like should have happened from a jet crash at 500miles an hour that was so hot it vaporised a plane (er,...right vaporised titanium and steel jet engines? whatever), and NOT SHOWING a jet airliner (the white nose of something too small/long and skinny to be a jet, but which conspiracy theorists (including me) think looks more like a missile) thus contradicting their own story! this makes the conspiracy theorists think it must be real (since it contradicts the gov story), and that the gov didnt want to release it, (same with the five frames of this footage that was "leaked" years ago) and therefore there must be a missile, while most people say "if so, what about the 40 witnesses, and so call the conspiracy theorists nuts!
never mind that multiple trained military personel at the pentagon smelled cordite, an explosive, not jet fuel, there was virtually no trace of the 100 tonnes of plane that crashed there, the hole in the inner section where somethin
1) allow the passing of the patriot act and other "anti-torrorist" unconstitutional bullshit laws
2) allow bush and (his puppet masters) to get permission to do pretty much whatever the frack he wants: invade multiple countries without UN approval, spy on US citizens without any warrant, strike down any court case with bullshit claims that it threatens national security etc (you may say he didnt get permission to spy, but he still did it, and even though its illegal, and he has admitted to it, he is not in jail or punished, therefore he got away with it/was allowed to do it)
3) allow the owner of the complex mr silverstein to claim $7 billion (he got $5 billion) in insurance for a property he had invested somewhere between 100 -300 million in: not a bad return on investment for owning the place for only 6 weeks before 9/11! (meanwhile he also solved his problem of how to remove the many tonnes of asbestos fireproofing in the towers that was causing health reg problems, which would have cost MANY millions of dollars to properly remove, and got the rights to rebuild if he wanted to, or get out of any lease obligations from his 99 year lease if he wanted to)
4) MAJOR motive: increase millitary spending/use wars to help bush's saudi oil buddies (iraq war is going to end up costing more than 1 TRILLIAN dollars US, how much of that went to halliburton and other defense contractors bush is friendly with, and how much of that was used to by massively overpriced crap (thousands of dollars for simple items like hammers, toilet seats etc) meanwhile US soldiers in iraq dont all even get supplied with bulletproof vests or properly armoured vehicles, and lose insurance benefits if they buy their own! The business of the poeple who plotted 9/11 is WAR and OIL
5) did you know that there was a MASSIVE gold repository under the WTC? mayor guiliani recovered 200 million in gold supposedly, however there was supposed to be at least a few BILLION in gold under there, and some calculations put as much as 150 BILLION in gold under there before 9/11!! who has it now? (abandoned trucks where found under there with gold in them, as if someone had been taking it and left before the towers collapsed, and hadnt got back yet)
So- we have many motives for 9/11 unrelated to muslim terrorists, including many billions in gold and cash and contracts. Thats a LOT of bribes/hits/ shut you ups. Of course motive is not enough, we need opportunity and evidence: which we have (so much I could never possibly list it all, but here are some of the kickers):
- No steel/concrete skyscraper has EVER completely or even nearly completely collapse from fire before or after 9/11 despite some haveing been COMPLETELY engulfed in flames for MANY hours (not just a small smoking/flames area for 1 hour), yet it supposedly happened 3 times on 9/11!! despite the smoke being black and sooty ( not enough air/low temperature flame or both) and taped radio of a Fire Brigade CHIEF saying theres two small fires that could be put out with only two hoses, right before it collapsed
-related: video/pictures of PEOPLE HANGING OUT OF THE GASH IN THE BUILDING where temperatures hot enough to melt steel are supposed to be present!!
- hydrocarbon (jet fuel/carpet/paper/wood etc) flames CANNOT reach the > 1500 C temperature needed to melt steel without an almost perfect fuel air mix( not present, see black smoke) AND preheating of the air (not impossible that some preheating occured, however take one look at the fires on the video I mention at the end of this post, in other buildings which DIDNT collapse, and compare, and you should agree that this wasnt what happened here). Most inside fires struggles to get past 700 C and only reach 1000C for brief periods at flashover.
- ar