Post by: jeepmor on July 23, 2007, 08:40:55 PM
Umm, we should all be scared if only half of this is actually true.
Please watch the whole thing before you start a flame session and try to convince me our government is not capable of such atrocites.
jeepmor
Post by: RocketMan on July 23, 2007, 08:53:33 PM
Your cup of tea, maybe, but not mine.
Post by: jeepmor on July 23, 2007, 09:30:19 PM
I sympathize with folks that don't want to entertain the theories thinking our government is not capapble of such acts. But just a little over 50 years ago no one believed Hitler was doing nasty stuff either now did they.
Post by: Sindawe on July 23, 2007, 09:53:20 PM
Post by: RocketMan on July 23, 2007, 10:01:47 PM
Conspiracies self destruct because people cannot keep their mouths shut. Especially in this country.
Post by: LadySmith on July 23, 2007, 10:37:50 PM
I'd rather not sit through nearly two hours of web video, how about the Reader's Digest version?
Can't help you there. The first 20 seconds of seizure-inducing graphics annoyed me.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 24, 2007, 02:39:20 AM
Quote
Please watch the whole thing before you start a flame session and try to convince me our government is not capable of such atrocites.
Why should I watch any of it? It's telling that the website won't give you a summary of the film. No, you have to give them your brain for two hours of spooky music and anonymous voice-over. Or at least that's what the first few minutes were like.
Post by: jeepmor on July 24, 2007, 03:18:28 AM
Readers digest version
part 1 - anatomy of the roots of Christianity, interesting if you can muck through it
part 2 - anatomy of 9/11 - why did it happen, who had what to gain. We now have a war on terror, an intangible enemy to keep us in fear.
part 3 - the anatomy of our governement and some of the schemes and power brokers involved in turning us into the New World Order.
Post by: Mabs2 on July 24, 2007, 06:34:26 AM
I'd rather not sit through nearly two hours of web video, how about the Reader's Digest version?
Can't help you there. The first 20 seconds of seizure-inducing graphics annoyed me.I can't stand long pointless intros...
I'm going to leave it playing while I go pee...
Post by: K Frame on July 24, 2007, 06:58:38 AM
I'd rather not sit through nearly two hours of web video, how about the Reader's Digest version?
It's all a huge conspiracy by THEM, and he's the only one smart enough to figure it all out.
Raging paranoia.
Yes, I'm sure that he's meticulously referenced everything.
It's the causal relations that he draws between those items that are suspect...
Post by: Mabs2 on July 24, 2007, 07:53:46 AM
Heaven really exists, but there's no room for idiots.
So God set up all these questionable things to weed them all out.
Reference:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
See? Anyone can do it.
Post by: Paddy on July 24, 2007, 09:15:32 AM
manipulation mind control zionist international banker one world government conspiracy.
The first part is an all out attack on Judeo Christianity, alleging that both faiths are simply copies, knockoffs, of prior astrologically based 'religions'. The idea that any God whatsoever exists is mocked by that great authority, George Carlin. Rather, the invention of these faiths is a plot by aforementioned international bankers to enslave us.
The second part deals entirely with 9/11, how the official story is a sham and a scam, and that in fact some of the 9/11 hijackers are alive and well as former employees of the U.S. government, as is Osama Bin Laden. The WTC towers were actually destroyed with controlled demolitions planted there by the government for the purpose of passing PA I & II and establishing DHS.
Part three expands the plot and names names. Rockefeller, the CFR, the Bush family, etc. FDR is implicated as part of the conspiracy. JFK was assassinated because he was about to 'out' the conspirators. Everything is completely controlled by these international bankers, our money supply, the media, government, entertainment, education, etc. They plan to enslave us all, and are going to implant RFID chips in us soon, very soon.
Post by: K Frame on July 24, 2007, 09:23:45 AM
Yow.
Look, if you need psychological counseling to recover from that unmitigated crap festival I'm sure everyone here will kick in.
I'm not sure what's more distressing...
That you were able to stomach watching the whole thing, or that there are acutally people who believe this twaddle...
Post by: Sindawe on July 24, 2007, 09:36:10 AM
Post by: Mabs2 on July 24, 2007, 10:27:52 AM
To keep those names a secret.
But these punk kids are free to let loose all their secrets?
Profound!
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 24, 2007, 12:27:45 PM
I'm just impressed they got Stanley Kubrick to do that opening sequence for them.
I can't find much info about this on the web. I guess my Google is broken, because all I can find are links to people saying, "Holy cow, this movie is so thought-provoking, I sat and watched it all, even though I really had the munchies, and the pot brownies were all gone."
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 24, 2007, 01:18:10 PM
Quote
The combination of this, now rather esoteric [Horus] mythology, with the philosophy of Plato, which was becoming popular on the Mediterranean shores, lead to the tale becoming the bases of a mystery religion. Many Greeks, and those of other nations, who encountered the faith, thought it so profound that they sought to create their own, modelled upon it, but using their own gods. This led to the creation of what was effectively one religion, which was, in many places, adjusted to superficially reflect the local mythology although it substantially adjusted them. The religion is known to modern scholars as that of Osiris-Dionysus.
Right. Religions were constantly intermixing, trying to combine and harmonize their pantheons with others. So, we have a bunch of gods that happen to have been born of a virgin on the same day, and killed and resurrected. Then, when Christianity comes along, based on a real God-Man who actually has these characteristics (other than the birth-date) the date of Dec. 25 is assigned for his birth also, despite any evidence of this birth-date. The other similarities are no big surprise. If you were creating a god-myth, things like virgin births, resurrections, disciples, would all be par for the course. The difference with Jesus being that his "myth" did not acrete over time, emerging from the dark mists of deep time. His story was set down mere decades after his earthly life, by people who had know him, or interviewed eye witnesses.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 24, 2007, 03:13:59 PM
Aw jeez, not this sh!t again!
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 24, 2007, 05:28:06 PM
Post by: Paddy on July 24, 2007, 05:58:25 PM
Quote
Yes, I'm sure that he's meticulously referenced everything.
It's the causal relations that he draws between those items that are suspect...
The bitch of it is.......many of the individual statements are factual (as far as we know). But the conclusions reached require an act of faith. That's the problem.
It's the causal relations that he draws between those items that are suspect...
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 24, 2007, 06:20:03 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 24, 2007, 07:39:50 PM
Quote
Yes, I'm sure that he's meticulously referenced everything.
It's the causal relations that he draws between those items that are suspect...
The bitch of it is.......many of the individual statements are factual (as far as we know). But the conclusions reached require an act of faith. That's the problem. It's the causal relations that he draws between those items that are suspect...
Which is pretty much what Mike just said.
Post by: Paddy on July 24, 2007, 08:24:06 PM
Quote
Which is pretty much what Mike just said.
Uh, yeah that's why I quoted it 
Post by: LadySmith on July 24, 2007, 09:35:29 PM
The WTC towers were actually destroyed with controlled demolitions planted there by the government for the purpose of passing PA I & II and establishing DHS.
So you mean those two jets we saw fly into the buildings had nothing to do with it? 
Post by: RocketMan on July 24, 2007, 09:38:07 PM
The WTC towers were actually destroyed with controlled demolitions planted there by the government for the purpose of passing PA I & II and establishing DHS.
So you mean those two jets we saw fly into the buildings had nothing to do with it? Those planes were nothing more than Hollywood special effects. I know this is true because my brother's mechanic's cousin's best friend's uncle heard it on Coast-to-Coast AM.
(Did I get the apostrophes in the right places...?)
Post by: jeepmor on July 24, 2007, 10:20:22 PM
Unfortunately, I did not pay that much attention to the title or authors of the government access version. If I ever find it, I'll share, I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.
Post by: LadySmith on July 25, 2007, 12:07:26 AM
I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.
Jeepmor, there is no lack of those around here who believe our government, and governments in general, are capable of great evil. Some of us have even survived such. However, we tend to believe in credible evil, not unproven conspiracy theories. We're pretty much a fact-based bunch, and conspiracy theorists get the hairy eyeball because all they tend to promote are theories presented as fact. I saw a documentary about the fall of the twin towers (and I think that's what it was called as well) featuring guys who actually designed & built them. They did so to withstand a hit from a jet liner of their time. They were impressed at how long the towers stood after initial impact and greatly saddened by their collapse, but not really surprised.
So, despite the fact that there were WTC tower workers and eyewitnesses who explained how the buildings collapsed, and despite the fact that you possess a mechanical engineering degree and have taken a few structural analysis classes, you'd rather believe that "there are some type of goblins involved in the 9/11 event"?
Perhaps you're earning the abuse you like.
Edited to play nice since jeepmor loves dogs.
Post by: K Frame on July 25, 2007, 03:52:04 AM
Eyewitness accounts are always 100% accurate during times of extreme stress.
Oh wait, no they're not.
The range of eyewitness testimony about what happened on that day is startlingly wide.
As for what happened to the buildings themselves, I don't have a mechanical engineering degree or structural analysis classes. That's why I find the University of Sydney's analysis of what happened to be so compelling. http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
They absolutely refute the notion that there were controlled explosives involved in the collapse.
One would have to be truly Zeitgeisted to believe that UoS personnel have been co-opted in to a huge American government conspiracy stretching back all the way to Roosevelt or further.
But how can we ever believe those mechanical and structural engineers at UoS? They're just hapless academics, right?
Most people don't find crap like this to be believable because of the US government's amazingly bad track record at keeping secret programs secret.
Then there's Ockham's Razor.
Finally, most people, while they believe that the government isn't telling us the whole story about 9/11 (I fall into that camp), we also don't believe that there's a huge, decades long and laughably complex conspiracy that has all been designed simply to rob the American people of their freedom.
The big question is, WHY would it take decades and decades for Americans to lose their freedom? Don't you think that the people who supposedly conceived the plan for enslaving the American people wanted the power for themselves, and wanted it in their lifetimes? What conceivable purpose would they have for laying a plan that GUARANTEES that they would never enjoy the fruit of their labors -- that some schmuck 40, 50, 60 years or more would become the Grand Poobah and all the originators get for their trouble is a dirt nap.
It's little things like that that these conspiracy theory jackasses don't consider.
Yes, they have FACTUAL information. A LOT of factual information.
What they don't have is factual bridging information that connects all of these facts.
For example...
Last night the Philadelphia Phillies beat the Washington Nationals. But, earlier this month, the Philadelphia Phillies became the losingest team in the history of professional sports.
We're missing some important facts/information that bridge those two verifably true facts and give them context and allow them to be properly related.
Anyway.
Believe what you want, but I have to agree with whoever pointed out that JFK was killed to protect this conspiracy, but the schmucks who put this video together have been allowed to plaster it all over the internet without being hunted down and disappeared?
Right.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 25, 2007, 01:30:56 PM
Quote
I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.
Let this be known as The MasterpieceArms Maneuver.
Step 1: Create account at APS.
Step 2: Start thread critical of the Bush Administration.
Step 3: When said criticism is found to be without merit, complain that "you people at APS" are Bush lap-dogs.
Post by: jeepmor on July 26, 2007, 11:41:07 AM
Regardless, please explain this one point then.
The towers were entirely cut off from power for a weekend roughly one or two weeks before the towers were hit. After that weekend, there were no bomb sniffing dogs allowed back in the building.
PS - I never called you lapdogs, you did.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 11:56:28 AM
That is not, however, the same as embracing conspiracy theories.
OK, the claim is made that after the WTC complex lost power, bomb sniffing dogs weren't allowed back in.
Is it that they weren't allowed back in, or is it that there was no perceived need to bring them in, or was it simply an oversight?
What's lacking in all of this is any credible reason WHY WTC 7 would be the only building demolished via controlled explosion. The two main towers had already collapsed, quite dramatically, and on national, and world wide television. What possible advantage would be gained by imploding another building, hours AFTER the events, when most everyone's attention was focused on WTC 1 and 2, or what was left of them?
It was, in a lot of ways, complete anti-climax.
A lot of the conspiracy theorists have latched onto the initial FEMA report on WTC 7, which said that the building sustained only minor damage. They completely ignore (probably because it's inconvenient to their cause) the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation, which shows that FEMA's initial report was just that, initial, and that it also ignored major issues that very well could have contributed to WTC 7's structural failure.
Post by: jeepmor on July 26, 2007, 12:07:45 PM
Quote
What possible advantage would be gained by imploding another building
It contained CIA offices, Mayorial offices and some others I can't recall at the moment. From the government access video I allude to (but can't find), it appeared to be a place that all the logistics of a conspiracy took place from. This video was much more credible than the Zeitgeist production.
BTW - how does a burning structure of steel collapse in that fashion. As in all the steel buildings, they don't. Jet fuel and diesel fuel in an open air environment are not sufficient to melt steel. Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event. The facts don't add up is all.
Post by: El Tejon on July 26, 2007, 12:15:09 PM
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 12:21:45 PM
This again.
Did you GO to the University of Sydney's website and read what's there?
The ONLY people who are claiming that the steel in the WTC "melted" are the conspiracy theorists. The steel did NOT melt. It heated, and when structural steel heats, it looses progressively more strength. It also expands, which can rip loose or significantly weaken critical structural attachment points.
There's also the fact that the WTC buildings weren't "steel buildings" in the conventional sense. Yes, they were steel buildings, but their design, and how they supported the loads inherent in a building, were RADICALLY different from traditional steel framed buidlings.
People who claim that a steel-framed building has never collapsed in a fire: 1) Ignore the important structural differences that were inherent in the WTC design, 2) assume that ALL steel buildings react the same no matter what happens, and 3) display an incredibly limited knowledge of how steel performs when it gets hot.
Again, the University of Sydney's website looks at all of this.
You know, down below you claim to have a degree in mechanical engineering and coursework in structural analysis.
I really find it hard to believe that someone who actually has those credentials doesn't grasp the concept of heat loading in steel and the fact that the WTC complex used a new type of design that is radically different from traditional steel structure construction.
I don't have a degree in mechanical engineering -- my Grandfather did.
I don't have coursework or work experience in structural analysis - my Father, a civil engineer, did.
But, even I can grasp the fact that steel's properties change as it gets hot, and that the WTC buildings were quite different in their design and construction.
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 12:23:22 PM
Quote
Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event.
Uh, where does this information come from?Quote
You mean like all that steel that burned and collapsed in California recently?
Huh?
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 12:24:22 PM
You mean like all that steel that burned and collapsed in California recently?
That's just more proof of a vast, continuing conspiracy, Tejon.
That bridge didn't collapse from the effects of an accident and fire weakening the structural steel. It was brought down by bombs planted in an attempt to destroy a CIA convoy.
Post by: mtnbkr on July 26, 2007, 12:24:32 PM
It contained CIA offices, Mayorial offices and some others I can't recall at the moment. From the government access video I allude to (but can't find), it appeared to be a place that all the logistics of a conspiracy took place from. This video was much more credible than the Zeitgeist production.
If so, why would they plan to destroy the towers from a building right underneath said towers and why wouldn't they arrange to destroy the building at the same time rather than after a long enough delay for folks to "connect the dots"?
Quote
BTW - how does a burning structure of steel collapse in that fashion. As in all the steel buildings, they don't. Jet fuel and diesel fuel in an open air environment are not sufficient to melt steel. Yet we had basements full of molten metal for weeks on end after this event. The facts don't add up is all.
I don't remember it being basements of molten metal, but merely hot metal and fires. There was more than fuel burning in that pile.
Chris
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 12:26:29 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 12:35:26 PM
There WAS quite a bit of evidence of molten metal throughout the WTC complex, and I have no doubt that there was a lot of molten metal in the basements of the WTC buildings.
BUT...
The conspiracy theorists immediatley jump to and equate molten metal to steel.
In their universe, other metals simply don't exist.
Metals such as... oh, aluminum. There are HUGE amounts of aluminum in any structure today.
Aluminum melts at roughly 1,220 deg. F., or roughly half the melting point of steel.
Even more important, though, is that 1,220 deg. F is easily obtainable in a draft driven fire. With two huge holes in the sides of the buildings and with stiff winds moving at the altitude of those holes, the WTC fires were very draft driven. They can be equated to a bellows forge.
There were also significant amounts of other metals in the WTC structures. Metals such as
lead, which melts at roughly 620 deg. F,
brass (lots of brass trim in many of those offices), which melts at roughly 1,600 deg. F.
Silver, roughly 1,750 F
Tin, around 500 deg F,
and Zinc, roughly 800 deg. F
All of those metals would be present in a modern construction, and in massive quantities.
Post by: El Tejon on July 26, 2007, 12:52:01 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 01:10:02 PM
Quote
Riley, there are have a couple of high profile industrial accidents out in California recently wherein steel melted.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html
Oh, yeah. That didn't affect me at all since I don't live in the http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html
Jet fuel does burn at what, 1500
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 26, 2007, 02:04:29 PM
PS - I never called you lapdogs, you did.
No, I called no one a lap dog. If you want to pick nits, these are your exact words:
Quote
Please watch the whole thing before you start a flame session and try to convince me our government is not capable of such atrocites.
I sympathize with folks that don't want to entertain the theories thinking our government is not capable of such acts.
I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.
You kept implying that, if we scoff at this movie, we must all have blind faith in our most benevolent rulers. Don't you understand that? I sympathize with folks that don't want to entertain the theories thinking our government is not capable of such acts.
I like the abuse from those who simply don't believe our government has an evil bone in it's body.
Quote
This stuff is like discussing religion or politics.
That's because we are discussing religion and politics, there, jeepie. Come on, you gotta laugh at yourself for that one. Quote
The towers were entirely cut off from power for a weekend roughly one or two weeks before the towers were hit. After that weekend, there were no bomb sniffing dogs allowed back in the building.
How often did they "bomb-sniff" the WTC?
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 02:09:00 PM
Riley, there are have a couple of high profile industrial accidents out in California recently wherein steel melted.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html
Tejon,
Sorry, but no. The fire degraded the concrete and it caused the structural steel in the roadway to soften, but it did not melt the steel. It's impossible for a fire like that to get hot enough to melt steel (nearly 3,000 deg. F). It is, however, possible to get more than enough heat from such a fire to cause structural steel to lose something like 50% of its structural capacity.
Result?
Collapsed highway.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 02:28:12 PM
When properly atomized and mixed with air, it burns a LOT hotter than that, over 1,500 deg. F., but nowhere near not enough to melt steel.
Aviation fuel, interestingly enough, burns right in the same temperature band. Aviation fuel, according to something I just found on Wikipedia, has a maximum burning temperature of just shy of 1,800 deg. F.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 02:31:21 PM
Oh, and just as an aside...
If you've never traveled East across the Tappan Zee bridge on a clear night while a full moon is rising, you should do so. INCREDIBLY beautiful. I quickly discovered what inspired the painters of the Hudson River School when I did that for the first time in 1988.
"To illustrate my point.
Two steel bridges...
The Tappan Zee across the Hudson above N.Y. City
And the George Washington Bridge, connecting New York and New Jersey
Given that they're both "steel bridges," they'd both fail in exactly the same manner, and for exactly the same reasons if both were subjected to the same catastrophic incident, right?
Wrong.
The Tappan Zee is a cantaliever span bridge, and the George Washington is a cable suspension bridge -- two design types that differ dramatically, yet both are constructed primarily of steel.
An incident that might cause one to fall into the water could well be shrugged off by the other.
Say, for instance, a plane severs the four support cables for the GWB's main span. It could well cause deck failure.
But, say, a plan severed the support trusses for the Tappan Zee's main span. Would it cause deck failure? Very possibly not, because the Tappan Zee is a cantaliever design. Much of the deck's support is found in the deck itself.
That differs greatly from the GWB, where the deck's weight largely "hangs" from the suspension cables. Those cables are crucial to the deck's staying right where it is.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 26, 2007, 03:49:34 PM
In an uncontrolled, undirected burn gasoline will burn with a flame of around 550-600 deg. F.
When properly atomized and mixed with air, it burns a LOT hotter than that, over 1,500 deg. F., but nowhere near not enough to melt steel.
Aviation fuel, interestingly enough, burns right in the same temperature band. Aviation fuel, according to something I just found on Wikipedia, has a maximum burning temperature of just shy of 1,800 deg. F.
When properly atomized and mixed with air, it burns a LOT hotter than that, over 1,500 deg. F., but nowhere near not enough to melt steel.
Aviation fuel, interestingly enough, burns right in the same temperature band. Aviation fuel, according to something I just found on Wikipedia, has a maximum burning temperature of just shy of 1,800 deg. F.
The fire does not have top be hot enough to melt the steel. It only has to be hot enough to cause the oxidation rate to increase rapidly, above 800 C (1476 F).
The steel will break down rapidly and lose structural integrity well before it's melting point of 2600 to 2800 F.
Thats why the molten aluminum (usually at 1500 to 1700 F) I used to transport on a truck could eat through a half inch of steel and leak if the refractory was cracked.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 04:37:25 PM
Uhm... Bob?
Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 05:23:58 PM
did he read Mike's rebuttals, or does he think we're just a bunch of mind numbed Timothy McVeighs?
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 26, 2007, 05:31:56 PM
The "Twin Towers were an inside job" drek resurfaces from time to time, roughly in cadence with the "There never was a lunar landing, they faked it in the desert" diatribes.
I have no doubts that the blast furnace effect of several thousand gallons of draft-fed Jet-A fuel weakened a structure already compromised by an impact to it's load bearing cage. The steel didn't have to reach melting temperature to go plastic. Add the weight of the floors above the impact zone, and voila'!
Nor do I have any doubts about Jeepmor's metal of choice.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 26, 2007, 05:40:13 PM
"The fire does not have top be hot enough to melt the steel."
Uhm... Bob?
Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?
Uhm... Bob?
Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?
Uhm...yeah.
Just adding to what you said.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 05:57:17 PM
"The fire does not have top be hot enough to melt the steel."
Uhm... Bob?
Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?
Uhm... Bob?
Have you read my messages from earlier today on this very subject?
Uhm...yeah.
Just adding to what you said.
Ah, OK. It looked like you were trying to explain to me about the melting point of steel, when I spent a pretty good chunk of text on the subject this afternoon.
And, I'll be darned if I can find it, but I've spent the better part of an hour searching High Road and TFL for a message on this very subject. It included a very nifty table that showed the percentage of strength and rigidity that structural steel loses at varying temperatures.
It doesn't take a lot of heat to make structural steel lose a lot of its strength. That's why they spend so much time insulating steel framed structures. The parking garage where I used to work is a good example. It was a 6 decker. The steel beams supporting the precast concrete slabs were heavily insulated. Why? You get a car fire going in a parking structure and it can cause a progressive structural failure.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 27, 2007, 06:45:49 AM
Post by: jeepmor on July 28, 2007, 07:13:14 PM
Quote
How often did they "bomb-sniff" the WTC?
The dogs were part of the security staff and there every day.
Good arguements here and I thank you all for them. I even like the tin hat profile image.
So this image is just photoshopped then. How does a structural member near the ground floor look like this from a collapse? Just asking?
http://911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg
popular mechanics
A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building,
Okay, I can buy into this theory, but there would be two more holes in the side of the builiding where the engines proceeded to carry their momentumn. They would not disintegrate like the wings would, they are much too heavy to be stopped by blast windows.
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2007, 09:06:32 PM
I think the term is called compression shearing.
Crystalline materials like steel and other metals, plastics, glass, etc., can behave in very curious ways when subjected to sudden physical stresses.
At the point where the towers collapsed the materials on the lower floors were subject to enormous stress loads -- the weight of 110 floors falling on top of them at significant velocities.
Also, the World Trade Center made extensive use of welding of structural components -- those could be failures of weld points.
Just another example of someone looking at a photograph and not having clue one what might actually be happening using it as "proof" that something nefarious is going on.
I don't think there's a demolition team in existence that would rig a controlled explosion to cut a support column at such an angle.
"Okay, I can buy into this theory, but there would be two more holes in the side of the builiding where the engines proceeded to carry their momentumn."
As the jet entered the building, the wings would have folded back along the fuselage and the engines would have entered the hole punched into the wall by the main body of the aircraft.
How do we know that's what happened? Because the jet's engines were found inside the Pentagon inline with the main point of entry.
Post by: jeepmor on July 28, 2007, 09:32:15 PM
Quote
I don't think there's a demolition team in existence that would rig a controlled explosion to cut a support column at such an angle.
I'm talking specificially about the angle cut piece in this response due to the evidence of the slag. I don't see any slag on the other pieces. They angle them so that they fall the direction they want. Just like a logger cutting a tree so it will fall where he wants it. This is also why they time blasts. Center blows first, starts inward collapse, then everything else, as it blows up, falls inward and makes a nice little pile in the basement. What should have happened if it was only the top portion collapsing was that it would have collapsed, met resistance (the rest of the structure) and then tipped and the top would have fallen off while a large chunk of the building would have still stood erect.
Plus, if it was a shearing, why all the slag all around every edge.
Quote
As the jet entered the building, the wings would have folded back along the fuselage and the engines would have entered the hole punched into the wall by the main body of the aircraft.
Any pictures? This is not what took place when the jets hit the WTC towers, please elaborate.
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2007, 09:32:57 PM
I can find no indication that bomb dogs were part of the routine daily security process at the World Trade Center complex.
It appears that bomb dog teams were TEMPORARILY placed at the WTC complex by Port Authority Police after a number of phone threats.
It also appears that this same process had been followed several times over the years.
Threats would come in, teams would be deployed for a certain amount of time, then they would be removed when the threat lessened.
Oh, and that photograph you just posted? I read the link title and had to laugh out loud.
"Thermite Thermate Explosives"
Jesus.
Remember what I said about someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about trying to "come up with the truth?"
That's another example.
Thermite and thermate are NOT explosives. They are incendary compouds that generate extreme heat. The photograph that you posted is a textbook picture of how thermite/thermate DO NOT affect steel.
Thermite and thermate generate extreme heat, enough to melt steel. NONE of the surfaces shown in that photograph display any indication of the use of thermite or thermate. The surfaces would look RADICALLY different and would be clearly apparent even on a photograph of this size and depth of field.
The video and pictures on this page (http://www.davidavery.co.uk/thermite/) will give you an indication of what happens during a termite/thermate reaction. No explosion, and lots of slag created by both the thermite and from the steel that it melts as it burns.
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2007, 09:54:17 PM
That supposed "slag" is only evident on the front of the column; there doesn't appear to be any indication of any such "slag" on the side of the column.
Here lies the danger of looking at a photograph and trying to say definitively "My God, that's slag left from a thermite charge!"
Many things could give the same appearance, including plastic melted onto the column. For example, the steel column in front of the one that has supposedly been "thermite cut." There is very clearly something adhering to the face of the column. It's not slag, we don't know what it is, but it's possible that whatever it is is a non-fire damaged material that gives the appearance of slag on the other column.
"What should have happened if it was only the top portion collapsing was that it would have collapsed, met resistance (the rest of the structure) and then tipped and the top would have fallen off while a large chunk of the building would have still stood erect."
Would you PLEASE go to the University of Sydney's website and read their analysis of why the towers collapsed? You'll hopefully see why that particular statement is so wrong.
Once again you've fallen back into the logic trap in which so many of the conspiracy theorists live -- if it's a steel building, it must be like all other steel buildings.
I'll say this until I'm blue in the face if I have to -- the WTC buildings used design and construction techniques that differ radically from other steel framed buildings, which means that they reacted to the events of 9-11 very differently.
You CANNOT look at the Empire State building and the WTC towers and say "Well, they're both steel framed buildings to they would respond exactly the same way to a similar incident."
"Just like a logger cutting a tree so it will fall where he wants it."
A building is NOT a tree. Controlled building demolition does not want to move any support component laterally. At the point where things start moving laterally, very bad things can begin to happen.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 29, 2007, 06:39:17 AM
We used to carry thermite grenades in our reconnaissance jets, for obvious reasons. They make big puddles of aluminum, but they don't do surgically explosive cuts. Somebody sold that "thermate" website a bill of goods.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 29, 2007, 10:20:47 AM
After a while, you figure out, the pig likes it.
Post by: K Frame on July 29, 2007, 10:39:01 AM
) apparently is afraid of going to the University of Sydney's website where REAL mechanical and structural engineers have looked at the WTC collapse and have explained WHY the WTC collapsed, and WHY the WTC wasn't anything like other sky scrapers that are built of steel. Hell, Oostraylah probably doesn't even exist... It's a fake nation that Bush's Skull and Bones society dreamed up to cover their illegal exploits regarding 9-11.
Sigh.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 29, 2007, 06:49:09 PM
Hell, Oostraylah probably doesn't even exist... It's a fake nation that Bush's Skull and Bones society dreamed up to cover their illegal exploits regarding 9-11.
I've always suspected as much.
Post by: InfidelSerf on July 29, 2007, 08:37:25 PM
I did find a torrent of that zighail movie, it will fit nicely with the rest of my collection of conspiracy theory movies.
Sure I have some unanswered questions about 9/11 more specifically about building #7,
but they fall more in the category of potential insurance fraud than anything else.
Besides.. we should all be allot more concerned about lizard people than bushbots.
Post by: jeepmor on July 30, 2007, 12:40:49 AM
I'll review the website you seem so bent on me seeing and chime back in. However, as you were. Let the "jesus" and
, and the pig in the mud and jackass statements continue. As I stated, I don't mind and it's good reading...and laughs. BTW, I conduct failure analysis for a living, it's my bread and butter. I'm not specifically in the metals arena, but there is some overlap on the on the physics principles when it comes to destructive failure.Have fun with it since it seems to entertain you guys, it's obviously keeping one of you a little OCD over the matter.
But I won't name names. 
Calm down a bit, this is an internet forum, you get what you pay for. If you get to that emotional outburst place, walk away for a bit, let it go, have a cigarette, beer or whatever. It's really not that important to me. Not enough for me to start calling you names because we disagree on something. Controlled building demolition does not want to move any support component laterally.
Yes they do. This is what starts the collapse in the center of these demolitions. The central core members get sheared (not really, they get cut by explosive pressure, but I digress) so they will fall and start tearing the structure apart simply by it falling under it's own weight. Simply blasting a section out parallel with your floor does not provide you with the means to make it fall where you want it, the angles, and timing of the blasts do this. It's not "only" about blast timing in controlled demolitions. It's the location AND orientation of the cut. Not all the columns get this angle setup, but some do.
I made no mention as to the title or credibility of the image. I've found the same image under several different names. Lets focus on the image, not the source or the title. I was specifically discussing the angled cut with the notable slag on it. Anyone of you ever run a cutting torch? If you have, you know that is metal slag of some sort. If you haven't, then so be it, I have, and that's what slag looks like fellas. It likely could form slag on the outside while the focus of the blast is towards the metal itself. That's the point. They use material that looks like angle iron for the blasting material. They call it a chevron shape so the charge focuses inward. Think of angle iron laying with the two legs making contact with the steel surface and the corner up off the surface. It makes a triangle of dead space between the steel and the angle iron.
Sorry about the dog issue. Thought they were staffed constantly. This is how it was reported (or I recalled it) from the govy access version I saw. Different producers, 9/11 specific. Still have not found it again. Got busy with home projects, so this thread has been neglected and I have not done the research you so desperately want me to see.
Post by: jeepmor on July 30, 2007, 03:52:33 AM
Post by: Nick1911 on August 01, 2007, 02:53:51 PM
The intro sucked though. Too much fear mongering.
I typed about half a post about my thoughts on this move, however I decided against posting them. Based on previous responses, I realized there is, in fact, no point. My post would simply be disregarded as "Oh, you fell for that bull! Jeez!" - with a notable exception of counter evidence; just ad hominem attacks.
Post by: jeepmor on August 01, 2007, 04:21:15 PM
I did read the recommended websites and they do make good arguements and offer good explanations. Some even had engineering data, that was nice to see. But that stuff does not explain that image of cut steel. I think my original post asked if it was a photoshop to begin with. Too much evidence got quickly carted off and recylced to ever paint an accurate picture of exactly what happened.
Consider this, every other plane wreck of planes that big have recovered their black boxes. No sign of it here? The FBI found an ID plate from the axle housing on the the vehicle used in the Kansas City bombings.... an axle tag.
Even if only parts of the story they are portraying is true, then we are headed down a road towards fascism. Recent events stripping of us many rights, or seriously watering them down, the Constitution referred to as just a piece of damn paper and so on. Bumpy road coming.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 01, 2007, 06:01:04 PM
Quote
a notable exception of counter evidence; just ad hominem attacks.
Did Mike Irwin delete all his posts, or are you reading some other thread? Seriously.
Quote
Even if only parts of the story they are portraying is true, then we are headed down a road towards fascism. Recent events stripping of us many rights, or seriously watering them down, the Constitution referred to as just a piece of damn paper and so on. Bumpy road coming.
Wake up, man. If there is any truth to that video, it's that the erosion of our rights has been a long time coming. 9/11? The Patriot Act? One could hardly think of a stupider way to do away with civil liberties. The record is clear. The easy, painless way to gut the Constitution is to control the education system, control the media, and simply chip away at the bulwarks one at a time. They've been doing it for a hundred years before 11 Sept., if not longer. Dramatic terrorist acts would be counter-productive.
Post by: helpless on August 07, 2007, 10:14:35 PM
That said, I have read all of your post about the documovie, I really dont know much about chemistry so the 9/11 buildings coming down is beyond my understanding, but what about this? the part in the movie talking about Bush's Grand dad working with the Nazis? I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#Plot_to_Overthrow_FDR_and_implement_Fascism
Tinfoil hats aside on this one, when do we say "Holy F%@K" My grandfather restored saw blades for a hardware distributer, what about your grand dads?
Bush Sr. and Jr. Whats up with that? This stuff is no secret, it just sounds crazy so it is easy to shrug off.
I am interested in hearing what you guys have to say in defense of this?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2007, 02:17:31 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
There doesn't seem to be much there. If this plot was real, how do we know Prescott Bush was really involved? What would his involvement tell us about his descendants?
Post by: K Frame on August 08, 2007, 04:37:13 AM
The whole smear campaign about Prescott Bush working with the Nazis is crap for a number of reasons.
1. Prescott Bush isn't the only American financier/industrialist, etc., to have close business ties with Nazi Germany before the war. Anyone ever look into the origins of the Kennedy Family fortune? There's signfigant "seig heil" in there, too.
Henry Ford, Walter Chrysler, and many other industrial/financial giants of the era had ties with the Nazis. So did many American companies, such as IBM, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, AT&T, you name it.
Why?
Because that was the diversified nature of American business back then.
Let's also not forget the some of the Americans who actively ADVOCATED for the Nazis before the war -- including Joseph Kennedy and Charles Lindburgh.
2. The other main reason the whole Nazi smear campaign is crap is because George Bush didn't participate in any of it. He wasn't born until AFTER World War II ended. It's nothing more than assasination through familial association. The Nazi were tossed from power over 60 years ago. What happened back then has absolutely no bearing on what is happening now.
Anyone who looks at this information in any light other than that if interesting history is an idiot.
Post by: helpless on August 08, 2007, 09:03:26 AM
I am not going to go back and forth, The Presidents Grandfather basically lent Hitler Money. Back up a little to Sr. The President's daddy lent Hitler money.
Nice
I will not reply to anything anyone else says because if they dont see how EFFED up this is then they sir are "Idiots" Your words not mine.
If someone showed you a picture of Prescott Bush dressed in an SS uniform with his arm around Hitler, Handing him a pile of cash while stepping on the American Flag, you would tell me it was prob a party and it was no big deal because the Kennedy's did it too and it has no barring on his grandson because he wasnt born.
Sorry bud but my grandfather had barring on me. I am sure it is more so the case when you are an Elitist like the Bush family.
Regardless, the link fistful posted does indeed list Prescott Bush as being involved.
Post by: K Frame on August 08, 2007, 09:33:33 AM
Given the tone of your post, I had no idea if you did/do, or did/do not, believe the information about Prescott Bush or whether that should, or should not, be a 'conversation' point in discussions about George Bush's suitability to be President.
I restate my prior comments regarding Prescott Bush's business dealings with Nazi Germany. Until the late 1930s it was not generally believed or considered that Adolf Hitler was anything other than a bombastic political figure. He was of concern, but please note that doing business with Nazi Germany was NOT illegal until late 1941.
Again, I fail to see how the Bush family's (or anyone else's) prior dealings with Nazi Germany, PRIOR to the outbreak of war, is of great concern or importance to the current President.
"Back up a little to Sr. The President's daddy lent Hitler money"
Oh really?
Just when did Bush I lend Hitler money?
When he was attending high school up to 1942?
How about after high school, when he, on his 18th birthday in 1942, enlisted in the Navy?
Or could it have been later in the war when he was serving in the Pacific in combat operations against the Japanese?
"If someone showed you a picture of Prescott Bush dressed in an SS uniform with his arm around Hitler, Handing him a pile of cash while stepping on the American Flag, you would tell me it was prob a party and it was no big deal because the Kennedy's did it too and it has no barring on his grandson because he wasnt born."
Oh cut the crap. You can do better than that.
There's one HELL of a lot of difference between having wide-spread business activities/connections and actually meeting someone as you suggest. That's the sort of wild-eyed screeching propagandistic crap that I'd expect to see from the "George Bush pushed the button that blew up the WTC" crowd.
"Normally what someones grandfather did would be no big deal but when that man is the leader of the free world as well as his father before him..."
Ah... the Sin of the Father concept. People use that same sort of "logic" to justify hatred and violence againt Jews because "Jews killed Jesus."
I'm sure your Grandfather does have bearing on you. Hopefully, though, people look at you for the RIGHT reasons, and not because your Grandfather may have, at some point before you were born, done something that may or may not have been bad at the time, but which later was seized upon by the narrow-minded and conspiracy prone.
I wonder if your Grandfather ever bought a bottle of Bayer aspirin. Chances are excellent that he did, because in the years prior to World War II, and in the years just after, Bayer had the lions share of the aspirin market in this country. Bayer's parent company, though, was connected to the Nazis quite closely. Even worse, it helped manufacture the poison gas used in World War I. So, given the "logical association" used by people who have seized on the Prescott Bush information to tar George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush YOU, sir, are guilty of mass murder, promulgation of weapons of mass destruction, and crimes against humanity. All because of the supposed sins of your Grandfather. What are you going to do to atone?
See how it works?
Post by: helpless on August 08, 2007, 11:39:50 AM
I guess I was not clear enough. I can see where that wouldnt be clear.
The current President's Father. His father, meaning The current Presidents Grandfather.
WOW What a stretch with the Bayer aspirin bit. I guess I have no reason to think it is kind of screwed up that the Presidents Grandfather (not Great Great Grandfather mind you) was in bed with Hitler.
My bad. I guess I better give up on my VW beetle restoration project.
As far as everything else you said, I really dont care, I told you I wasnt going to go back and forth. believe what you want and I will continue to do the same. The fact is, The current President, who takes a dump on the US Constitution every morning, His dear old grand dad was Hilter's Banker. You think that is no biggy? Cool, we disagree you and I.
Have a nice day.