What REALLY happened on 9/11, the truth of 9/11... carry an open mind. Options

[Druid]

Oh My god where to start.

How about Mr Exclusive.
What I've already debunked
al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government
Unture.. al-Qaeda didn't form until 5 years after the USA stopped funding the Afghan resistance fighters to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar. they KNOW if a plane goes off course, in which case they would send fighters within minutes to investigate.
Prior to 9-11 Norad was only focused on the 150 miles which make up the Air Defence Identification Zone encircling North America. Its job was to help assess, within two minutes, if each of the 7,000 incoming aircraft every day is friend or foe.
Post 9-11 Norad began monitoring all flights above the US.
In fact they didn't even turn their attention inward until after the 2nd tower was hit.
Also upon further reading I've found out Norad is notified of possible hijackings, which goes against your suggestion they would automaticlly now about it themselves.

=one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens.
Still waiting on a link to this that isn't a consparcy or propaganda site.
I will give you this much I wouln't doubt at all that Bush may of given them a directive to back off the bin Ladin family outside of Osama.
Here is an old post of mine detailing the difference between Osama and the bin Ladin family
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...indpost&p=43031
And another post detailing what we knew about Osama concerning possible attacks.
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...indpost&p=34810
This also contridicts the 1st point about Osama being a CIA assest

btw, the plane is 80 tons, not 165.
Futureman took care of this one rather nicely

And some new debunking
next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th.
I've seen several of your propaganda sites which claim there has never been a collapse of a steel/concret structures do to fire. Then the sites would use this claim as proof that the WTC towers were blown up as part of some covert operation.
All I can say is WOW.
It took me all of 60 seconds to find a study on Building Collapses Due to Fire.
Google is your best friend for the real facts. do a search for "Building Collapses Due to Fire"
Looky looky and see what comes up as the 1st hit. A study of full and partial collapses of multi-story buildings do to fire.
The WTC towers make up a large part of the study but they are by no means the only building that ever collapsed do to fire.
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Histo...apse_Survey.pdf

Or how about the suggested idea from other conspiracy sites which uses the fact tower 2 was hit second but collasped 1st as their support for the idea the building was broght down by explosive charges and not from damage from the fires or impact of the plane.
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/artic...2052003_ns.html
When the twin towers were built in the early 1970s, fire insulation just 19 millimetres thick was sprayed onto the trusses.
The New York City building code stipulates that the insulation on steel structures should be at least 38 millimetres thick. However, the Port Authority's special legal status means it does not have to comply with the code.
Much more of the North tower had been updated to the required 38 millimetres of fire insulation than the south tower. This goes a long way to why the south tower collapsed 1st.


Are you having fun yet? I am.

[Too Exclusive]

first of all, as for the stand-down... i do NOT know who's making u think that the most powerful military of the most powerful most secure country in the world is stupid enough to let 4 planes wonder around for hours, and let 3 of the hit their targets... i have NO CLUE who's telling u that we're stupid enough to let that happen. especially when prior knowledge is a fact. we were warned by so many other countries, THAT'S NOT EVEN CONSPIRACY THEORIES, THAT'S MAINSTREAM NEWS! and it's ADMITTED that NORAD was running drills of hijacked jets being flown into WTC, pentagon, sears tower and other places. THEY ADMITTED THAT! THAT'S A FACT!

one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens.
Still waiting on a link to this that isn't a consparcy or propaganda site.

well if you would've went to a site i gave u, it gives links to a lot of news articles. but since u dont want to go to the news articles because they're linked from "propaganda" sites.

LINK <-- is BBC a conspiracy site as well?
LINK <-- hindustandtimes
LINK <-- more BBC
LINK
LINK <-- guardian.co.uk

need more?

And some new debunking
next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th. 
I've seen several of your propaganda sites which claim there has never been a collapse of a steel/concret structures do to fire. Then the sites would use this claim as proof that the WTC towers were blown up as part of some covert operation.
All I can say is WOW.
It took me all of 60 seconds to find a study on Building Collapses Due to Fire.
Google is your best friend for the real facts. do a search for "Building Collapses Due to Fire"
Looky looky and see what comes up as the 1st hit. A study of full and partial collapses of multi-story buildings do to fire.
The WTC towers make up a large part of the study but they are by no means the only building that ever collapsed do to fire.
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Histo...apse_Survey.pdf

you took everything out of context. first of all, i said no STEEL FRAMED BUILDING ever collapsed. and if you'll read your OWN RESOURCE that u showed me, ull notice that the ONLY steel framed buildings to fully collapse were the ones on 9/11. period. now, just remember my previous post... building 7 compared to the windsor building. windsor didnt collapse from a raging inferno that burned twice as long as building 7 did, yet building 7 DID collapse in a most unusaul straight down fashion...

Or how about the suggested idea from other conspiracy sits which uses the fact tower 2 was hit second but collasped 1st as their support for the idea the building was broght down by explosive charges and not from damage from the fires or impact of the plane.
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/artic...2052003_ns.html
When the twin towers were built in the early 1970s, fire insulation just 19 millimetres thick was sprayed onto the trusses.
The New York City building code stipulates that the insulation on steel structures should be at least 38 millimetres thick. However, the Port Authority's special legal status means it does not have to comply with the code.
Much more of the North tower had been updated to the required 38 millimetres of fire insulation than the south tower. This goes a long way to why the south tower collapsed 1st.

i don't know WHERE the fuck you heard that crazy shit. noone that i have EVER talked to about 9/11 thinks that the fact the south tower collapsed first has anything to do with explosive charges. don't try to debunk an argument that never existed... at least one that i think is bullshit.

Are you having fun yet? I am.

TONS

[Too Exclusive]

now your use of the word "propaganda"... don't forget propaganda has to have a motive. there has to be a reason for people using propaganda... and also propaganda is usually something that reaches the masses... like say, the news media... conspiracy sites dont usually reach the masses... and why would they be trying to make ppl believe that? there's no reason. like F911... that was propaganda. moore wanted to get ppl to vote for kerry. but what do conspiracy theorists gain from this? nothing.

[Silver]

if u were to say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed you would have to have indebth knowlege of NFPA records and county records and understand how heat and fire work in regards to reflective and radient heat properites. the special foam that was used in fire proofing the structure according to building codes was damaged by debris falling from the WTC towers to the point the steel was left exposed, lowering the heat resiestant properites of the steel. the fire didnt have to be hot to let the steel bent, it didnt have to melt. the damaged steel was being supported by the other steel trusses and was bearing a load byeond what the structure called for. the heat didnt need to be hot to let the steel bend. thats all it took of all the building to fall. the damage done to the footers and the foundation of all the buildings form the WTC attacks. not only that but whos to say the bombing a few years before didnt invite some stress cracks in main supports? but all aside we had a structure collapse, due to fire. a vet clinic, gas pipe ruptured and was a total loss. the foundation gave way due to construction and boom. if you are to say that no steel framed structure has ever fell to fire ill say you need a lesson in fire.

[Too Exclusive]

u just said there was an explosion. im talkin about building 7. no FALLING debris hit it... the debris cloud that spread out when the tower hit the ground hit it but that's all. now i dont know if uv seen the building 7 collapse or not, but if you look at the way it came down, there is a 1 in a billion chance that it would not tip... IT FELL INTO IT'S FOOTPRINT. that means it would've had be symmetrical stress done on all the steel supports, evenly so that when it did collapse in that fashion it wouldn't have tipped, ESPECIALLY since there was an uneven debris pile developing below... if you want, ill make u a diagram when i get back.

[Silver]

gad line rupture does not mean explosion. it means it broke causeing a 30 foot torch inside the building (same thing smaller scale) and it fell. you dont understand why it happened. take a walk to the local fire department and they will pop some tapes (training video) in for you to understand.

[Too Exclusive]

sorry for the misunderstanding... but still, think about it diesel, if a building were to fall VERTICALLY likie building 7 did, HOW? if it actually did collapse due to the miniscule fires that were in there it would've been SO uneven that it would've tilted and fell over after a few floors. think about that.

[Druid]

Hey exclusive
Maybe you should go back and check your links you posted about your phantom
as you called it Executive Order, turns out it wasn't.
It was an FBI Directive

Even better one of your own links describes it as them being told to back off the Binladin family in the USA.
http://prisonplanet.com/fbi_claims_bin_lad...frustrated.html

Go back and read my post about the difference between bin Ladin and the bin Ladin Family.

This is still in the debunked column for two reasons.
1) It wasn't an Executive order like your conspiracy sites try to make it out to be.
2) It didn't concern Osama but the bin Ladin Family

[Too Exclusive]

alright... ill give u guys that one for now...
but ur never gonna get the other ones...
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/ou....explosions.mov
check that out, and watch it very slowly and very carefully

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 02/20/05 1:32pm

[Silver]

thats called a flash over. the tempature in the area reached a between 400 and 600 degrees (dont take the number exact, dont recall exact temp) and flashed. a flash over is when the temp reaches a certian degree the gasses that are produced in the fire ignite and eveything including you own skin become combustible and everything ignites at once. its extremely common and its a fire fighter's worst nightmare. thats what kill's us (them). if a room flashes everything is dead. rats people, everything burns. thats why ff have heat rooms to learn when to pull out and get to saftey. thats all it was. if you dont want to see that go to nfta.com and look around.

btw that shows how hot it was inside to disrupt the steel's intregerty.

This post has been edited by D. Silver: 02/20/05 2:16pm

[Too Exclusive]

coincidence that it happened at the as the 2nd plane hit? and on many different floors?

This post has been edited by Too Exclusive: 02/20/05 5:19pm

[ScarFace]

Dude give it up. Haven't you noticed yet that 99% of what you posted is just nonsense and speculations?

Stop wasting everyone's time.

[Silver]

it happened on all the areas that were involved in the fire. yeah it coincidence, it has to happen its part of a fire, with out FF operations it hapopened. thats why people were jumping to their death. they were being cooked alive. when ur being burnt to death, jumping is a lot better then burning.

[Druid]

So you will only concede me one point out of several that I've made?

Then how about few more.
i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse.
This goes in the misleading category for two reasons.
1) It doesn't factor in the damage caused by the aircraft or the initial explosion
2) The lower floors where built to a much higher design specification do to the load it was required to carry.

Penny
One fact that most people do not know is that these buildings were over engineered to withstand major storms, and yes, even large hits from major airliners.
In the misleading category again.
Double check the info supplied with your link
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/41790.php
The conclusion it draws is inaccurate do to the example he provides.
In his comparison of the the kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 and 767 he uses cruise speed for the velocity in both equations.
This is misleading do to the fact the scenario of an aircraft hitting the WTC involved a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport, which was the most common and foreseen reason an aircraft would hit a skyscraper. This would mean the plane would be traveling around 180 or probably slower which is a huge difference from estimated speeds of the two aircraft of 470 and 590 at impact.
The formula for kinetic energy is .5*mass*(speed squared)
Using the speed of a plane traveling at 180mph lost in fog and you get 1.7B foot-lbs compared to his estimate of 3.7B foot-lbs, pretty damn big difference wouldn't you agree?
BTW I actually think the whole point is moot because the towers obviously survived the impact otherwise they would of fallen right then. I'm only bringing this up to make the point, how misleading information was used to question why the towers collapsed. Pretty much every report and study concludes the collapse was caused by the resulting fire and not the actual impact.

Penny
Fact is 47% of people in New York feel there is a 9/11 cover-up and many upon many feel 9/11 should be re-opened.
Since you didn't say what poll this is from I can only guess it's from the Zogby Poll.
Lets take a closer look.
The poll was sponsered by 911truth.org
Care to take a look at the 100's of examples how it's easy to influence polls by the question asked?
Or how about the fact the poll only involved 808 random calls. Not what I would consider a very large poll.
Also absent is the timeline for the poll which was in the week leading up to the RNC, during this time there was a large anti-bush media blitz.
Care to review several examples of how the media can effect polls?

penny
A 7 billion dollar legal suit has been brought against Bush and other governmental administrators by 400 hundred families who lost relatives on 9/11. Link The suit is claiming that Bush allowed the terrorist attacks to occur.
Very misleading if not a straight out lie.
This is a class action suit which requires 3 people to intiate the suit.
Now look at the actual lawsuit
[URL=http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html]
http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html[/URL]
Ellen Mariani is listed as 2 of the 3, once as an individual and once as the Representative of her husband's estate. The 3rd plaintive is "and others similarly situated"
Where do you get 400 families filed this suit? If anyone else was even involved at the time it was filed they would be named under section 1.
If you read the actual suit doesn't it sound a little like media grandstanding?
If not why was the suit also accompanied by 3000 press releases?
The most important reason this goes in the misleading category is because it doesn't prove anything. Anyone can file a civil lawsuit for anything, bringing it up is completely pointless until a Judge rules if there evidence to support a trial.
All it really requires to file a suit is finding a lawyer willing to do it.
Now take a closer look at the lawyer in question Philip J. Berg.
From his own website
"Phil Berg was highly involved in challenging the 2000 presidential election, spending three intense weeks in Florida investigating voting irregularities. He had formally demanded the voluntary disbarment of three Supreme Court Justices (December 12, 2001 letter) due to their conflict of interests in that decision. He was in the process of filing formal legal complaints when September 11th happened and ended that effort."
Now you tell me doesn't that sound like a person with an ax to grind?

[Too Exclusive]

philip berg? if im not mistaking, that lawyer's name was Stanley Hilton, former advisor to Bob Dole and went to school with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. Search online for Stanley Hilton. you'll find a lot about him, including a radio interview he did with Alex Jones.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091004hilton.mp3

listen to it.