Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
9/11 was an inside job, and related matters; just trying to liven things up
Topic Started: May 30 2007, 12:25 AM (1,787 Views)
toad

Bill
Jun 17 2007, 02:06 PM
Hi Carol,

I don't think you've put anyone offside - certainly not me. And the fact that I'm a mod is neither here nor there in this discussion. :)

I agree with you that there are gaping holes in the official story and they need to be addressed. However, there are also gaping holes in the conspiracy theories that should not be glossed over. For instance, much of what you saying focuses on motive, which is all well and good, and the opportunism of the administration following the attacks is undeniable, but motive isn't everything. Don't forget that until that day, the only thing the Bush administration was actively doing was trying to provoke a war with China.

I think this is a really important discussion to have but I think you need to decide whether you want it to be a discussion or a lecture. There are many flaws in the conspiracy theories put forward and pointing out that the theorists don't have the resources of the federal government at their disposal doesn't make them any less flawed.

And it seems to me (just speaking as Bill here) that when such flaws are pointed out in the discussion, you seem to react but assuming that the people pointing out the flaws are overly credulous of the government's explanation. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you actually had a rebuttal to those points, we could have a lot more fun. :)


Bill--

You say there are gaping holes in the conspiracy theories which shouldn't be glossed over. And your example has to do with the administration's possible motive for conniving in the attacks. I think that I have been trying to avoid discussions of motive, in favor of trying to get people to reconsider whether they really know what actually happened. I don't remember mentioning motive until Mozart8mytoe said, first, that the conspiracy theorists didn't supply a motive, and then, that if they mentioned the obvious motive, the justification for invading two foreign countries, that it was a lousy motive. So I don't remember focusing on motive, but instead on physics and engineering. And those are the subjects of the articles I've linked above.

If you see other "gaping holes" in the alternative conspiracy theories, could you mention what the others are?

You say that I should decide whether I want this thread to be a discussion or a lecture. Well, obviously, everyone hates a lecture. That's why I tried to get other sources to do the lecturing, or the instructing, for me. This strategem obviously didn't work. I have supplied three examples of the kind of analysis that I want to talk about, but nobody seems interested in what my sources have written, possible because they haven't read them yet.

The main tenet of the alternative conspiracy theory I'm talking about is that the twin towers could not have fallen as they did simply because they were hit by one 767 each. (We'll pretend bldg 7 never existed, for the sake of convenience.) The only theory that fits the actual collapses we witnessed is that controlled demolition was used. Now, if that is the best theory of why the twin towers collapsed, why didn't the 9/11 Commission even consider it?

You're right--there are many fascinating questions about the events of 9/11, and I don't believe we've even started to ask them yet.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reverend Dave
Member Avatar

You can't control what people talk about or how a discussion goes. Why would anyone want to? Isn't that what people are accusing the government of doing?

People like to complain about their government. There always seems to be something to complain about. The Bush government has made some mistakes, but I can't imagine them ever doing something so completely evil. Americans are not always as hungry to take over the world as people seem to think.
With great power comes great responsibility. With great age....
What was I going to say?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
toad
Jun 17 2007, 01:03 AM
Well, I think I set a land speed record for alienating everyone on a board, including a moderator. It always happens, but usually it takes longer.

Hi Carol,

I've been reading your posts with interest and, while I haven't replied to many or necessarily agreed with some of the conclusions or theories offered in your posts or sources, I think it is important for people to keep an open mind about all of this. As Cathy (beatlechick) has rightly said, many people who have disagreed with the theory of the US Government being behind the 9/11 attacks are those who I know do not have confidence that the US and UK Governments are telling us the truth, all of the time.

I don't think that you have alienated everyone on the board and would naturally invite you to take part in some of the other discussions on this forum and you'll probably find common ground with many people here on lots of different subjects. It's difficult plugging an unpopular belief - I've done it many times myself, so I can empathise with the way you feel on this subject. I believe that it's a good thing that you're so committed to sharing this theory and - although I am highly sceptical - you may, one day, be able to have the (dis)satisfaction of being one of the only people who believed the truth. I personally doubt it, because of the motive issue, but it's a possibility. Anything is possible. ;)
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Reverend Dave
Jun 18 2007, 03:58 AM
You can't control what people talk about or how a discussion goes. Why would anyone want to? Isn't that what people are accusing the government of doing?

People like to complain about their government. There always seems to be something to complain about. The Bush government has made some mistakes, but I can't imagine them ever doing something so completely evil. Americans are not always as hungry to take over the world as people seem to think.

Hi, Dave--

I really appreciate your just simply saying you can't *imagine* this government doing something so evil. That is the big one--that is the first reaction from everyone who learns that some people are questioning the official version. And it's entirely understandable. Shivers ran down my spine when I realized that at the G8 summit in the summer of 2001, Pres. bush was required to sleep on an aircraft carrier because security forces feared an airplane might be used as a missile to disrupt the meeting.

So, I don't know whether you are actually a man of the cloth, but the scholar I rely on absolutely for discussion of the alternative conspiracy theory is Dr. David Ray Griffin, a Professor emeritus at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, in Claremont, CA. The qualities of his mind are excellent: he's judicious, rational, careful, thorough, and fair. He never loses his temper in print, and I have no idea what his politics might be, because he never discusses politics in his books, which are: The New Pearl Harbor (2003), The 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004), and this year's Debunking 9/11 Debunking, in which he scrutinizes several 2004 publications which attempted to debunk the alternative conspiracy theories. He's also written one called Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006)

You can look all of these up at Amazon, and see what various readers have to say about them. Nobody sane wants to believe that the official conspiracy theory is mostly lies, but some of us have been forced to the conslusion that that is the best explanation for the known facts.

Carol

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Posted Image
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Dorothy
Jun 18 2007, 07:28 PM
Posted Image

Dorothy--

I did not mean to upset you. I never mean to upset you. I think you are the tops, and the cat's pajamas. You're the Louvre Museum, and the Eiffel Tower. And don't let anyone tell you any different.

And was it anything I said?

Love,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

beatlechick
Jun 17 2007, 07:23 PM
Bill
Jun 17 2007, 07:06 AM
I think this is a really important discussi)



Reports from the ground by the farmers in the area of Shanksville stated that there appeared to be only one plane that was gliding for the ground, not nosediving. A missile shot, depending on where it hit, would have had the plane either spiralling to a nosedive or completely shattered with pieces being found miles away. This did not happen.

Other reports from Pennsylvania residents say a large piece of a 767 engine was found 1800 to 2000 yards from the site which was declared the official crash zone. That's over a mile. Also found nowhere near the "crash site" were what appeared to be passengers' personal effects.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 17 2007, 02:06 PM
Hi Carol,

I think this is a really important discussion to have but I think you need to decide whether you want it to be a discussion or a lecture. There are many flaws in the conspiracy theories put forward and pointing out that the theorists don't have the resources of the federal government at their disposal doesn't make them any less flawed.

And it seems to me (just speaking as Bill here) that when such flaws are pointed out in the discussion, you seem to react but assuming that the people pointing out the flaws are overly credulous of the government's explanation. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you actually had a rebuttal to those points, we could have a lot more fun. :)

Bill--


Just to clarify what I'm saying about the Bush administration and the alternative theorists. I'm not arguing that the government simply has "more resources" than the independent researchers.

I'm arguing that they are behaving as though they have something to hide, and if they were complicit in the attacks, they are open to charges of war crimes and mass murder. IF they told the Air Force to stand down for 2 hours on 9/11, this is a high stakes game for them personally. I'm saying that any American administration has enormous power, and so it matters enormously how they use it. I'm saying that at least two people who spoke out disagreeing with the official theory have lost their jobs, even though they don't work directly for the government. We have lots of businesses and large universities in this country who are financially dependent on the federal government for funding. This administration has not been shy about using its power to do all sorts of things, including wrecking Valerie Plame's career.

Cheers,
Carol

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
toad
Jun 18 2007, 12:50 PM
beatlechick
Jun 17 2007, 07:23 PM
Bill
Jun 17 2007, 07:06 AM
I think this is a really important discussi)



Reports from the ground by the farmers in the area of Shanksville stated that there appeared to be only one plane that was gliding for the ground, not nosediving. A missile shot, depending on where it hit, would have had the plane either spiralling to a nosedive or completely shattered with pieces being found miles away. This did not happen.

Other reports from Pennsylvania residents say a large piece of a 767 engine was found 1800 to 2000 yards from the site which was declared the official crash zone. That's over a mile. Also found nowhere near the "crash site" were what appeared to be passengers' personal effects.

That is nothing unusual. There are cases where a small plane crashes upon landing with their nosegear found a mile away. What would be unusual if there is any midair explosion and finding things 10 miles away which happened when a Air Mexico jet collided with a small airplane over the City of Compton, CA (I think it was Compton). Debris was scattered for over 10 miles. Personal effects can be carried by wind so that is not so unusual.

When I say over a few miles, I mean a few miles like 5 or more. One mile is not at all unusual. Not totally normal but it has happened.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
This was the explosion of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie that was brought down by a bomb:
Quote:
 
The debris from the aircraft was scattered across 845 square miles and the impact reached 1.6 on the Richter scale.


Quote:
 
20th Century History 
Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Over Lockerbie
From Jennifer Rosenberg,
Your Guide to 20th Century History.

On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 people on board as well as 11 on the ground. Though it was almost immediately evident that a bomb had caused the disaster, it took more than eleven years to bring anyone to trial. What happened to the plane? Why would someone plant a bomb on Flight 103? Why did it take eleven years to have a trial?

The Explosion

Pan Am Flight 103 taxied out of the gate at Heathrow Airport in London at 6:04 p.m. on December 21, 1988 - four days before Christmas. The 243 passengers and 16 crew members were preparing themselves for a relatively long flight to New York. After taxying for a few minutes, Flight 103, on a Boeing 747, took off at 6:25 p.m. They had no idea that they only had 38 more minutes to live.

By 6:56 p.m., the plane had reached 31,000 feet. At 7:03 p.m., the plane exploded. Control had just been issuing Flight 103's clearance to start its oceanic segment of their journey to New York, when Flight 103's blip went off their radar. Seconds later the one large blip was replaced with multiple blips traveling downwind.

For the residents of Lockerbie, Scotland, their nightmare was just about to begin. "It was like meteors falling from the sky," described resident Ann McPhail (Newsweek, Jan. 2, 1989, pg. 17). Flight 103 was over Lockerbie when it exploded. Many residents described the sky lighting up and a large, deafening roar.

They soon saw pieces of the plane as well as pieces of bodies landing in fields, in backyards, on fences, and on rooftops. Fuel from the plane was already on fire before it hit the ground; some of it landed on houses, making the houses explode.

One of the plane's wings hit the ground in the southern area of Lockerbie. It hit the ground with such impact that it created a crater 155 feet long, displacing approximately 1500 tons of dirt. The nose of the airplane landed mostly intact in a field about four miles from the town of Lockerbie. Many said the nose reminded them of a fish's head cut off from its body.

Wreckage was strewn over 50 square miles. Twenty-one of Lockerbie's houses were completely destroyed and eleven of its residents were dead. Thus, the total death toll was 270 (the 259 aboard the plane plus the 11 on the ground).

Why Was Flight 103 Bombed?

Though the flight held passengers from 21 countries, the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 hit the United States especially hard. Not only because 189 of the 259 people on board were Americans, but because the bombing shattered America's sense of safety and security. Americans in general felt trodden upon by the unknown danger of terrorism.

Though there is no doubt of the horror of this crash, this bomb and its aftermath was just the most recent in a string of similar events.

As revenge for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub where two U.S. personnel were killed, President Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya's capital Tripoli and the Libyan city of Benghazi in 1986. Some people think that bombing Pan Am Flight 103 was in retaliation for these bombings.

In 1988, the USS Vincennes (a U.S. aircraft carrier) shot down an Iranian passenger jet, killing all 290 people on board. There is little doubt that this caused as much horror and sorrow as the explosion on Flight 103. The U.S. government claims that the aircraft carrier mistakenly identified the passenger plane as an F-14 fighter jet. Other people believe that the bombing over Lockerbie was in retaliation for this disaster.

Right after the crash, an article in Newsweek stated, "It would be up to George Bush to decide whether, and how, to retaliate" (Jan. 2, 1989, pg. 14). Does the United States have any more right to "retaliate" than do the Arab countries?

The Bomb

After investigators had interviewed over 15,000 people, examined 180,000 pieces of evidence, and researched in more than 40 countries, there is some understanding as to what blew up Pan Am Flight 103.

The bomb was made out of the plastic explosive Semtex and was activated by a timer. The bomb was hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which in turn, was inside a brown Samsonite suitcase. But the real problem for investigators has been who put the bomb in the suitcase and how did the bomb get on the plane?

The investigators believe they received a "big break" when a man and his dog were walking in a forest about 80 miles from Lockerbie. While walking, the man found a T-shirt which turned out to have pieces of the timer in it. Tracing the T-shirt as well as the maker of the timer, investigators felt confident they knew who bombed Flight 103 - Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah.

11 Years of Waiting

The two men whom investigators believe are the bombers were in Libya. The United States and the United Kingdom wanted the men tried in an American or British court, but Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi refused to extradite them.

The U.S. and the U.K. were angry that Qaddafi would not turn over the wanted men, so they approached the United Nation's Security Council for help. To pressure Libya into turning over the two men, the Security Council imposed sanctions over Libya. Though hurting financially from the sanctions, Libya continually refused to turn over the men.

In 1994, Libya agreed to a proposal that would have the trial held in a neutral country with international judges. The U.S. and the U.K. refused the proposal.

In 1998, the U.S. and the U.K. offered a similar proposal but with Scottish judges rather than international ones. Libya accepted the new proposal in April 1999.

Though the investigators were once confident that these two men were the bombers, there proved to be many holes in the evidence.

On January 31, 2001, Megrahi was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Fhimah was acquitted.

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit:
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1980s/a/flight103.htm

©2007 About, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
 
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 19 2007, 06:14 AM

Bill--


Just to clarify what I'm saying about the Bush administration and the alternative theorists.  I'm not arguing that the government simply has "more resources" than the independent researchers. 

I'm arguing that they are behaving as though they have something to hide, and if they were complicit in the attacks, they are open to charges of war crimes and mass murder.  IF they told the Air Force to stand down for 2 hours on 9/11, this is a high stakes game for them personally.  I'm saying that any American administration has enormous power, and so it matters enormously how they use it.  I'm saying that at least two people who spoke out disagreeing with the official theory have lost their jobs, even though they don't work directly for the government.  We have lots of businesses and large universities in this country who are financially dependent on the federal government for funding.  This administration has not been shy about using its power to do all sorts of things, including wrecking Valerie Plame's career. 

Cheers,
Carol

I have no argument that they are behaving like they have not just something but everything to hide.

However, that's a separate issue to what really happened on Sept. 11.

Let's take an example that conspiracists cite: firemen being quoted out of context describing a "bang, bang, bang," as the towers fell.....

The towers collapsed from the top down. That means one floor feel onto another and then another and then another....
That would mean that all the air on those floors would be rapidly compressed and need to go somewhere. When the pressure becomes too much, the expulsion of the air would of course sound like an explosion. This would obviously happen for every floor.

Now I don't have any sites to link to that say this. That's just my own common sense telling me this.

Please understand that I am not for a moment saying that the government's story is complete or credible. But the fact that the government's story is neither complete nor credible doesn't not automatically mean that other theories are complete or credible. I'm not going in to bat for either side. I'm looking critically at all theories. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

If the events of that day where orchestrated by the American government & used as an excuse to attack an entire culture, how will people feel about themselves when the truth is finally revealed & their newly-borne hatred has no outlet?
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill, lest we forget that a lot of that banging and explosive sounds were the bodies hitting the ground, awnings, glass, and the roofs of the buildings. A documentary was being filmed down the street from the wtc and was actually being filmed at the very moment as the first plane was flying overhead. I remember watching this video, shown complete and uncensored without commercial interruption. It was extraordinary and quite unnerving seeing the shadow of the plane flying overhead as the the fire dept personnel were rushing outside to see what was going on. This documentary was shown on CBS on a Sunday night just a few months after. The documentary makers were actually allowed to follow the fire personnel into the north tower, no one had realized the extent of what was going on so the fire dept allowed them in as long as the fire dept felt it was 'safe.'

The name of the documentary is "9/11" (for some reason I thought it was Heroes or Brothers) and here is a blurb on it:
Quote:
 
   Preceding "9/11" on CBS News' primetime coverage of the anniversary,
60 MINUTES II will broadcast Correspondent Scott Pelley's exclusive interview
with President Bush from the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One, Wednesday,
Sept. 11 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT).  Mr. Bush and his closest advisors will offer
an oral history of what happened immediately following the attacks, as well as
provide their thoughts on the future of America and its place in the world.
    On September 11, the Naudets were in lower Manhattan taping a documentary
on the Engine 7, Ladder 1 firefighters when Jules suddenly heard a roar from
above and turned his camera upward.  In doing so, he captured the only known
video of the first plane striking the World Trade Center.  Cameras still
rolling, Jules followed the firefighters into the heart of what would soon be
known as Ground Zero.  Gedeon also rushed to the scene with members of Ladder
1.  Over the next several hours, the brothers captured extraordinary video
unlike any broadcast since, including 45 minutes of footage from inside the
North Tower as the rescue effort was underway and dramatic scenes of escape in
the minutes before the building collapsed.


I will never forget the explosive sounds from inside the north tower as the bodies were hitting around the documentary makers. It was very chilling. Watching the fire personnel jumping when the loud bangs were going on, and then to see them in action as the building was starting to collapse is something that is hard to not remember those images.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

beatlechick
Jun 18 2007, 10:40 PM
toad
Jun 18 2007, 12:50 PM
beatlechick
Jun 17 2007, 07:23 PM
Bill
Jun 17 2007, 07:06 AM
I think this is a really important discussi)



Reports from the ground by the farmers in the area of Shanksville stated that there appeared to be only one plane that was gliding for the ground, not nosediving. A missile shot, depending on where it hit, would have had the plane either spiralling to a nosedive or completely shattered with pieces being found miles away. This did not happen.

Other reports from Pennsylvania residents say a large piece of a 767 engine was found 1800 to 2000 yards from the site which was declared the official crash zone. That's over a mile. Also found nowhere near the "crash site" were what appeared to be passengers' personal effects.

That is nothing unusual. There are cases where a small plane crashes upon landing with their nosegear found a mile away. What would be unusual if there is any midair explosion and finding things 10 miles away which happened when a Air Mexico jet collided with a small airplane over the City of Compton, CA (I think it was Compton). Debris was scattered for over 10 miles. Personal effects can be carried by wind so that is not so unusual.

When I say over a few miles, I mean a few miles like 5 or more. One mile is not at all unusual. Not totally normal but it has happened.

Well, there was debris scattered at some distance from the crash site, as well as near it--the distances are described variously, one at 3-1/5 miles, another at 8 miles. Apparently the FBI and the State Police came out immediately and collected debris in plastic bags and removed it. As the results of that investigation have never been made public, it is hard to tell just where all the concentrations of airplane contents were found.

For Flight 93, there are PA residents' reports of several anomalies -- one a small military or unmarked white jet that was seen in the area just before and after the Shanksville impact. There are reports of several explosion-type sounds being heard before the impact, and one Viet Nam vet saying he heard an incoming rocket.

The presence of debris over a wide area could be explained in several ways: perhaps the aircraft lost integrity because it was overstressed, and started to break up; or there was a bomb aboard, which went off; or it was hit by a missile.

So the loss of this particular aircraft has a number of questions that haven't been answered, but the official story remains unchanged: the passengers tried for control of the aircraft, and either deliberately or accidentally crashed it. And they say that the Air Force did not know about this plane until a few minutes after it crashed (so, of course they couldn't have shot it down.)

There is another set of questions about the Pentagon hit, about the twin towers, and bldg 7. But the government has never released the results of whatever FBI investigations there were, and the 9/11 Commission just took the official story as proven, and moved straight on to examine only the question of where the Air Force had been that morning. That's an excellent question, but not the only one by a long shot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Still, the 8 mile radius is nothing. Did you not read the article I posted? The Pan Am plane had debris for something like 50 square miles. Another important point is the jetfuel was on fire before it hit the ground and burned so hot it exploded the houses when it landed on them. You still want to believe that the jetfuel could not have done the damage to the towers?

As for seeing things in the sky, there was a Alaska Air jet that crashed just a few miles from where I live. It crashed in the Pacific Ocean just off the coast of Port Hueneme, a naval port. People said they saw a plane or a rocket hit the airline before it crashed. There was another plane that crashed just out of La Guardia where people stated they saw either another plane or a missile attack it before it went down. Both could not be proven as radars both military and air traffic control, in the case of the Alaska Air jet, saw nothing else in the air. In the case of the Alaska Air jet it had to do with poor maintenance.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

I could easily believe that flight 93 was shot down by the American military. Under the circumstances it would have been completely justifiable. After New York and the Pentagon, if you cannot give that order, you should not be President.

But shooting down flight 93 would make sense and would be very easy to pull off, logistically. Imploding the towers would not.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
mozart8mytoe
Jun 19 2007, 09:11 PM
I could easily believe that flight 93 was shot down by the American military.  Under the circumstances it would have been completely justifiable.  After New York and the Pentagon, if you cannot give that order, you should not be President.

But shooting down flight 93 would make sense and would be very easy to pull off, logistically.  Imploding the towers would not.

I remember that the military was having trouble with making that decision to shoot down a civilian aircraft. Unfortunately we probably will never know.

From what I remember, Lissa, the President was being hidden in a bunker and was basically out of touch for something like 2 hours so it appears it was left to the joint chiefs of staff and the Pentagon to deal with any aircraft. I believe that at this time, the skies were still being cleared.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 19 2007, 02:29 AM
toad
Jun 19 2007, 06:14 AM

Bill--


Just to clarify what I'm saying about the Bush administration and the alternative theorists.  I'm not arguing that the government simply has "more resources" than the independent researchers. 

I'm arguing that they are behaving as though they have something to hide, and if they were complicit in the attacks, they are open to charges of war crimes and mass murder.  IF they told the Air Force to stand down for 2 hours on 9/11, this is a high stakes game for them personally.  I'm saying that any American administration has enormous power, and so it matters enormously how they use it.  I'm saying that at least two people who spoke out disagreeing with the official theory have lost their jobs, even though they don't work directly for the government.  We have lots of businesses and large universities in this country who are financially dependent on the federal government for funding.  This administration has not been shy about using its power to do all sorts of things, including wrecking Valerie Plame's career. 

Cheers,
Carol

I have no argument that they are behaving like they have not just something but everything to hide.

However, that's a separate issue to what really happened on Sept. 11.

Let's take an example that conspiracists cite: firemen being quoted out of context describing a "bang, bang, bang," as the towers fell.....

The towers collapsed from the top down. That means one floor feel onto another and then another and then another....
That would mean that all the air on those floors would be rapidly compressed and need to go somewhere. When the pressure becomes too much, the expulsion of the air would of course sound like an explosion. This would obviously happen for every floor.

Now I don't have any sites to link to that say this. That's just my own common sense telling me this.

Please understand that I am not for a moment saying that the government's story is complete or credible. But the fact that the government's story is neither complete nor credible doesn't not automatically mean that other theories are complete or credible. I'm not going in to bat for either side. I'm looking critically at all theories. ;)

Well, I can't agree that the government's behaving like they have everything to hide is a separate issue to what really happened. I do agree with you that a number of aspects of the government's behavior look very suspicious. An awful lot hinges on whether the towers pancaked down or were blown up, and if they were blown up, the effort to stonewall investigation would be entirely understandable.

In your first example, you say that "firemen" are being "quoted out of context" if they say they heard explosions. At first, you seem to be accusing the conspiracy theorists of cheating rhetorically to justify their case for demolition. But then you supply two possible reasons for why those present might have been confused about what they actually heard: they heard the floors pancaking, or they couldn't distinguish between bodies hitting the ground and actual explosions. So, are ou accusing the conspiracy theorists of dishonesty, or the witnesses of confusion? I'm not ready to assume that many people, many of them very experienced, made the same errors. Are you assuming that none of the hundred or so people who reported hearing explosions actually did?

I'm also curious as to your guess about how long it would have taken for both 110-story buildings to have pancaked their way to the ground.

And I'm not saying that the alternative conspiracy theorists I'm reading have a complete theory, but I'm saying it's much more credible than the government's shifting set of explanations for all four events.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

JeffLynnesBeard
Jun 18 2007, 11:58 AM
toad
Jun 17 2007, 01:03 AM
Well, I think I set a land speed record for alienating everyone on a board, including a moderator.  It always happens, but usually it takes longer. 

Hi Carol,

I've been reading your posts with interest and, while I haven't replied to many or necessarily agreed with some of the conclusions or theories offered in your posts or sources, I think it is important for people to keep an open mind about all of this. As Cathy (beatlechick) has rightly said, many people who have disagreed with the theory of the US Government being behind the 9/11 attacks are those who I know do not have confidence that the US and UK Governments are telling us the truth, all of the time.

I don't think that you have alienated everyone on the board and would naturally invite you to take part in some of the other discussions on this forum and you'll probably find common ground with many people here on lots of different subjects. It's difficult plugging an unpopular belief - I've done it many times myself, so I can empathise with the way you feel on this subject. I believe that it's a good thing that you're so committed to sharing this theory and - although I am highly sceptical - you may, one day, be able to have the (dis)satisfaction of being one of the only people who believed the truth. I personally doubt it, because of the motive issue, but it's a possibility. Anything is possible. ;)

Hi, Jeff (or is it actually Andy?)--

I want to thank you for popping up and saying something kind and encouraging to me. And also, before I could get back to your post in this thread, I took your advice and went over to the Birthday thread, and did one of my annual pomes with horrible rhymes. When I started posting on the interweb (Paul may know more about this stuff by now than I do), I wrote exclusively about Paul, and was very happy. Paul likes to make up new songs for us, and I like to make up new praises for the songs he makes. So sue me, as the saying goes.

But as you know, the web is a very tough place sometimes, and I do not have a trace of masochism in my tiny psyche. I hate insults and conflict, and generating heat rather than light. And I was also viewing national and international events from 2000 onward with increasing horror, and spending time reading about them every place I could find something useful, which did not include print newspapers or the broadcast media.

Anyhow, the subject of this thread is so important that I am here trying to change the perspective of anybody whose mind is open on the subject, because I am a citizen as well as a Maccafan. I WISH, Oh, how I wish!, that I could devote my time and energy entirely to McCartney appreciation, but I'm scared to. Still, bad as things are, Paul's music is one of two or three things that are keeping me sane. ... Obviously I think I'm still sane, but I admit that I might be mistaken.

Thanks again for your post.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 20 2007, 11:06 PM

In your first example, you say that "firemen" are being "quoted out of context" if they say they heard explosions. At first, you seem to be accusing the conspiracy theorists of cheating rhetorically to justify their case for demolition. But then you supply two possible reasons for why those present might have been confused about what they actually heard: they heard the floors pancaking, or they couldn't distinguish between bodies hitting the ground and actual explosions. So, are ou accusing the conspiracy theorists of dishonesty, or the witnesses of confusion? I'm not ready to assume that many people, many of them very experienced, made the same errors. Are you assuming that none of the hundred or so people who reported hearing explosions actually did?

Certainly not. I've no doubt they heard explosions. But the sound of an explosion is merely the rapid displacement of air and I've given you what I think is a pretty good explanation how that could have happened without the use of explosives.

Let me reiterate that I am not backing either theory, simply keeping an open mind about all possibilities.

As for whether I am accusing conspiracy theorists of dishonesty, absolutely I am. I have seen several Sept 11 documentaries that play the one firefighter on a loop talking about the explosive sounds without ever giving the context in which he says it. Now you have to ask yourself why they would do that unless they wanted to skew the facts to fit their agenda. Perhaps they have something to hide? It certainly looks dishonest. But just because they're dishonest doesn't mean they're wrong, right? See? ;)

As for building 7, I can't even begin to describe how suss that is.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Adilah
Jun 19 2007, 04:19 AM
If the events of that day where orchestrated by the American government & used as an excuse to attack an entire culture, how will people feel about themselves when the truth is finally revealed & their newly-borne hatred has no outlet?

That's a very good and humane question, Adilah. Please remember that there are lots of Americans hwo never hated Arabs, or Muslims, or anyone else who simply happened to be a member of a large group of people who culd be labeled something or another. Lots of us never hated anyone, and we've resisted being told to hate Muslims. The actual number of people who cannot distinguish between Muslims and terrorists of whatever religion is, I think, a minority of the population. Some of those haters are disposed to hate anyone who's different from themselves, and whom they don't know personally. Probably no amount of imformation will change their minds about who was responsible for 9/11. The world becomes too complicated for them if they admit they could have been duped. But that still leaves a percentage who will be very very ticked off (angry) at some specific politicians when they find out how they've been used. This would be healthy anger, and I hope they use it for some constructive purpose, like abandoning television as a source of news altogether.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 20 2007, 02:26 PM
As for whether I am accusing conspiracy theorists of dishonesty, absolutely I am. I have seen several Sept 11 documentaries that play the one firefighter on a loop talking about the explosive sounds without ever giving the context in which he says it. Now you have to ask yourself why they would do that unless they wanted to skew the facts to fit their agenda. Perhaps they have something to hide? It certainly looks dishonest. But just because they're dishonest doesn't mean they're wrong
right? See? ;) [/QUOTE

Bill--

It's fine to accuse anybody of dishonesty in whom you've observed it, but in fairness to the honest and careful people about, you really should name names here--were these documentaries on the web, and if so, who produced and wrote them? I'll be happy to avoid anything they've said in future.

When you say that you're accusing "conspiracy theorists" of dishonesty, you kind of imply that they are all dishonest. I don't think you'd really want to do that. The ones I've referenced above are an emritus Theology professor and a Physicis professor, and to my knowledge neither of them has been accused, much less convicted, of any dishonesty. Prof. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed, as is standard practice for any scientific or scholarly paper.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 20 2007, 08:06 AM
In your first example, you say that "firemen" are being "quoted out of context" if they say they heard explosions.  At first, you seem to be accusing the conspiracy theorists of cheating rhetorically to justify their case for demolition.  But then you supply two possible reasons for why those present might have been confused about what they actually heard: they heard the floors pancaking, or they couldn't distinguish between bodies hitting the ground and actual explosions.  So, are ou accusing the conspiracy theorists of dishonesty, or the witnesses of confusion?  I'm not ready to assume that many people, many of them very experienced, made the same errors.  Are you assuming that none of the hundred or so people who reported hearing explosions actually did? 

There were plenty of explosions, as well as many other ghastly sounds and sights. And yes, the sound of people jumping from those buildings was absolutely horrendous. One thing you can never get from documentary footage is the smell. As bad as that day looked and sounded, I think it smelled even worse.

But explosions are not exclusively caused by pre-planted explosive devices that somehow no one ever noticed or has come forward to admit some involvement. Some explosions are caused by large planes crashing into buildings and those buildings coming down. It is all a very noisy business.

By the time most buildings are imploded, there is a large crowd of onlookers. The entire project can take weeks. And yet somehow the evil government managed to plant thousands of explosives on two very large buildings without a single person's knowledge. People often accuse the Bush Administration of incompetence, but if they managed to pull all of this off so well, they have to be the most efficient administration in the history of the United States.

toad
Jun 20 2007, 01:05 PM
like abandoning television as a source of news altogether.

This is the first thing you have written here with which I can completely agree.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 21 2007, 04:54 AM

Bill--

It's fine to accuse anybody of dishonesty in whom you've observed it, but in fairness to the honest and careful people about, you really should name names here--were these documentaries on the web, and if so, who produced and wrote them? I'll be happy to avoid anything they've said in future.

When you say that you're accusing "conspiracy theorists" of dishonesty, you kind of imply that they are all dishonest. I don't think you'd really want to do that. The ones I've referenced above are an emritus Theology professor and a Physicis professor, and to my knowledge neither of them has been accused, much less convicted, of any dishonesty. Prof. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed, as is standard practice for any scientific or scholarly paper.

Cheers,
Carol

Hi Carol,

The two films that use that quote are In Plane Sight and Loose Change. But the sad thing is that both those films have very good points to make as well and I would encourage anyone to watch them - not because they are great pieces of investigative journalism (they are not) but simply to hear what they have to say. What saddens me is the way they have cheapened their point by trying to come up with some kind of grand unifying conspiracy theory instead of sticking to the really iffy stuff, like building 7 and the fact that there wasn't enough room for an airliner in the damage to the Pentagon. Surely those two things are shocking enough without having to quote firefighters out of context for effect.

However, I was not for a moment trying to imply that all conspiracy theorists are as disingenuous as that one example. That would be like implying that anyone who dispute conspiracy theories is in lock-step with the official story. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

At the link above, you see a comparison of the Boeing 707, and the Boeing 767. The 707 is the plane the WTC towers were designed to withstand a crash with. From the diagram, you can see that the 707 has a wingspan, at 146', which is 10' shorter than the 767, at 156' The fuselage of the 767 is 6' longer that the 707. The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 336,000 lb. The mtw of the 767 is 395,000. The 707 carried 23,000 gallons of fuel, and the 767 carried 24,000 gallons of fuel. The 707 could cruise at 607 pmh, and the 767 at 530 mph.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

To accept the official conspiracy theory, you must accept the following list of coincidences:

1) Several FAA flight controllers exhibited exteme incompetence on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.

2) The officials in charge at both NMCC and NORAD also acted incompetently on 9/11, and evidently on that day only.

3) In particular, when NMCC-NORAD officials did finally order jet fighters to be scrambled to protect New York and Washington, they ordered them in each case from more distant bases, rather than from McGuire and Andrews, respectively.

4) After public statements saying the Andrews Air Force Base had no jet fighters on alert to protect Washington, its website, which had previously said that many jets were on alert, was altered.

5) Several pilots who normally are airborne and going full speed in under three minutes all took much longer to get up on 9/11.

6) These same pilots, flying planes capable of going 1,500 to 1,800 miles per hour, on that day were all evidently able to get their planes to fly only 300 to 700 miles per hour.

7) The collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center, besides occurring at almost free-fall speed, exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced.

8) The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony form people in those buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.

9) The collapse of WTC-1 and WTC-2 had some of the same features as the collapse of WTC-7, even though the latter collspse could not be attributed to the impact and jet fuel of an airplane.

10) Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.

[to be continued]

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Can I just ask who here has actually put their hand up in support of the official story? :hmm:


Quote:
 
7) The collapse of the buildings of the World Trade Center, besides occurring at almost free-fall speed, exhibited other signs of being controlled demolitions: molten steel, seismic shocks, and fine dust were all produced.

And what might have caused seismic shocks, molten steel and fine dust under the circumstances that day?

Quote:
 
8) The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony form people in those buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.

I've already suggested an explanation for that. The common witness on the street when their city is under attack is likely to interpret any load noise as an explosion and rightly so. That does not automatically mean that explosive charges were planted in the buildings. No disrespect to those who were there, but we need credible witnesses.

Quote:
 
10) Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.

So what??
Fires die down when there is nothing left to burn. When there is nothing left to burn and the steel is molten, that means there's nothing left to hold the upper floors up. That means they fall down. And it's pretty likely that something that heavy will crush what's below when it falls.

It's more likely that if it were a set up, the first building hit would be the first to fall. (or perhaps that's what they want us to think! ;) ) That wasn't the case because the second hit was lower, was closer to a corner of the building and quite simply did more damage than the first.

Another fact of steel construction is that it does not lose its integrity during a fire but after the fire. As the steel cools, it warps, rendering the structure completely unsound. It's quite possible that it was the cooling of the fires that actually triggered the collapse.


It's true that the towers were built to withstand an air crash. However, you do understand that that's merely in theory don't you? They never actually tested the design. Someone else did - and they did it under conditions never imagined by the designers.


Let me state again - because I'm not sure that it's sunk in - that none of what I have said vindicates the official story. I just know junk science when I see it. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
And in regard to the seismic waves, having lived in California all my life and finding out that a heavily loaded Mac Truck can cause a seismic wave of about 1 to maybe 1.5 on the Richter Scale. A falling building, of course would cause some seismic wave!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

toad
Jun 20 2007, 06:54 PM
Bill,Jun 20 2007
02:26 PM
When you say that you're accusing "conspiracy theorists" of dishonesty, you kind of imply that they are all dishonest. I don't think you'd really want to do that. The ones I've referenced above are an emritus Theology professor and a Physicis professor, and to my knowledge neither of them has been accused, much less convicted, of any dishonesty. Prof. Jones's paper has been peer-reviewed, as is standard practice for any scientific or scholarly paper. Cheers
Carol [/QUOTE

I want to correct something I said--namely that Prof. Jones's work has been peer reviewed, and not challenged. It has been peer-reviewed and challenged, rather convincingly on some points. I just read the papers the day after I posted the comments above.

So, the peer review system is working as it's supposed to, and flaws have been found in some of his conclusions. It is fair to say though, that the lack of a serious investigation by the government leaves it wide open to charges of cover up. You will remember previous lost flights, and the National Transportation Safety Board investigations that followed. They were exhaustive and expensive, but all the evidence that could be found was gathered and examined. There was no NTSB investigation of the WTC disaster, nor the other two crashes. There has been no denial from anyone of the fact that all the steel beams remaining on the ground after the WTC collapses, were quickly carted away on trucks and sold as scrap to China and India, and so the steel beams that were once the WTC are no longer available for testing.

I'll reply to Bill's long post a little later today.

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

No disagreement with any of that. :)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM
Can I just ask who here has actually put their hand up in support of the official story? :hmm:



Let me state again - because I'm not sure that it's sunk in - that none of what I have said vindicates the official story. I just know junk science when I see it. ;)

To my recollection, no one has said they accept the official theory.

But I do see several people, including you, Bill, and Beatlechick, warmly attempting to debunk the central assertions of the alternative theories. This is at the same time as you admit that the Bush administration behaves as though it's hiding something. You seem to want to have it both ways: you certainly don't want to get stuck defending the official theory, but you are vigorous in attacking the alternative theorists' findings and some of their evidence. You have said you find some of the alternative findings convincing, and others not (I'm paraphrasing, and did not go back to find your exact comments on that). You admit that the speed of the towers' falls is a difficult problem, but your personal theory, the pancake theory, doesn't explain the near free-fall speed of collapses, at least not to my common sense, and not to several physicists who have looked at the problem.

See more below.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM


Quote:
 
8) The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony form people in those buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.


I've already suggested an explanation for that. The common witness on the street when their city is under attack is likely to interpret any load noise as an explosion and rightly so. That does not automatically mean that explosive charges were planted in the buildings. No disrespect to those who were there, but we need credible witnesses.


I will just note a few things here: that the firefighters who reported explosions are as close as we are going to get to "credible witnesses." And the witnesses were both inside and outside the buildings when they reported hearing, seeing, and feeling explosions. And while their reports certainly don't automatically mean that there were pre-planted explosives, their reports are part of the whole set of phenomena that we have to explain somehow if we are going to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of what actually happened.

And I'm bemused to see that you do not consider any of the people who were there that day to be credible witnesses. You don't imagine we're going to find *more* credible witnesses now, do you? We have to take account of what some of the people who were actually there report, even as we admit that there are other noises that can sound like explosions.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM


Quote:
 
10) Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.

So what??
Fires die down when there is nothing left to burn. When there is nothing left to burn and the steel is molten, that means there's nothing left to hold the upper floors up. That means they fall down. And it's pretty likely that something that heavy will crush what's below when it falls.

It's more likely that if it were a set up, the first building hit would be the first to fall. (or perhaps that's what they want us to think! ;) ) That wasn't the case because the second hit was lower, was closer to a corner of the building and quite simply did more damage than the first.

Another fact of steel construction is that it does not lose its integrity during a fire but after the fire. As the steel cools, it warps, rendering the structure completely unsound. It's quite possible that it was the cooling of the fires that actually triggered the collapse.


It's true that the towers were built to withstand an air crash. However, you do understand that that's merely in theory don't you? They never actually tested the design. Someone else did - and they did it under conditions never imagined by the designers.


First, there's no one left defending the molten steel theory--I believe the government first mentioned it, but under a barrage of criticism that there was not enough heat, and not enough time, to render structural steel molten, they stopped talking about that, and went to the softened steel assertion. There was enough heat to soften structural steel, they said. All the engineers and physicists who look at this assertion say, no there wasn't enough heat, and what heat there was didn't last anywhere near long enough. In addition, most people are now pointing out that even if you could get the fires inside the building to, say 1200 F, that doesn't mean the steel got anywhere near that temperature, because steel is an excellent conductor of heat. The steel near the fires would have dispersed the heat to other beams it was connected to, and so not have had to endure 1200 F even for 56 minutes.

The pancake theory, which you seem to like quite a bit, was proposed not by either the FEMA or NIST studies, but by a professor at MIT, Thomas Eager. You introduced the possiblity that the floors of the buildings, slamming together as they fell, would produce explosive noises. I agree, but I do not see how you could have had floors pancaking all the way to the ground at 8.5 floors per second, which is, in one scenario, what you would need to get the top floor to the bottom in 10-11 seconds. One tower was hit at the 85th floor--we will imagine that the top block of 25 floors cut loose as one block, crashed into the 85th floor, and so on down. 85 floors pancaking one at a time is 8.5 crashes per second, in total, if not evenly spaced.

And although the design of the WTC towers was never tested by crashing an airplane into it, I believe that the effects of such a crash could be carefully projected from the probable weight and speed of the aircraft, and that good engineers could design in such a was as to try to protect the buildings from total collapse. The designers definitely supplied both towers with 240 perimeter support columns and 47 central support columns. Another problem with the pancake theory is where the heck did all that steel go after the collapse? And for that matter, where were the concrete floor pans, whose frames were welded, not bolted, to the support columns? Where was the office furniture and the remaining occupants of the buildings? Did we see photos of a 20-story pile of concrete slabs with mashed desks in between the slabs? No, we didn't.

There was too little rubble, and way too much dust for the pancake theory to work, imo. What seems to have happened is that most of the mass of both buildings was pulverized, turned to particles the size of flour or talcum powder. Again, too much energy expended in pulverization to have come from the weight of the floors crashing into each other. The floors had so much energy to expend--if they used it crushing the floors beneath them, how did the downward thrust manage to pulverize the concrete in the floors and the walls, and apparently the office furniture?

And although the design of the towers was never tested, the heat resistance of the steel certainly was, by Underwriters' Laboratory, and it passed the test.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
toad
Jun 24 2007, 07:51 AM
Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM


Quote:
 
8) The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony form people in those buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.


I've already suggested an explanation for that. The common witness on the street when their city is under attack is likely to interpret any load noise as an explosion and rightly so. That does not automatically mean that explosive charges were planted in the buildings. No disrespect to those who were there, but we need credible witnesses.


I will just note a few things here: that the firefighters who reported explosions are as close as we are going to get to "credible witnesses." And the witnesses were both inside and outside the buildings when they reported hearing, seeing, and feeling explosions. And while their reports certainly don't automatically mean that there were pre-planted explosives, their reports are part of the whole set of phenomena that we have to explain somehow if we are going to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of what actually happened.

And I'm bemused to see that you do not consider any of the people who were there that day to be credible witnesses. You don't imagine we're going to find *more* credible witnesses now, do you? We have to take account of what some of the people who were actually there report, even as we admit that there are other noises that can sound like explosions.

Regarding the explosions, did you not read my earlier comments about the bodies hitting the building? I now have the dvd of 9/11 where these two french Canadians were filming a documentary on a NYC fire dept just a couple of blocks away from the WTC when the planes hit. They got all of that on film AS it was happening. They were also allowed inside one of the towers when some of the bodies were starting to hit. You could hear the audible boom the bodies made when they landed on top of the building and on the ground. It sounded like an explosion. Even the firefighters and NYPD were thinking so and were ducking for cover. All it was were the bodies, no explosions.

As for debunking the conspiracy theories, of course it will be fought over. This is my country and terrorists hit my country. I refuse to believe anyone until we know the God's honest truth which probably will never ever happen. I don't trust anybody's word especially when common sense says they are probably wrong or ill-informed as in the seismic event. Hitting a building is like playing with blocks. You can make a building strong, as in blocks, but there will always be a weak point no matter what you have been told. A good architect will tell you that and find it on the blueprints. The point is to not show the weak point. Haven't you ever made a building with blocks and taken a lower block out and it still stands? I have, but yet, you try another block and the the whole thing comes crashing down like a pancake. I know a building is not the same as blocks but it makes it easier to explain.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

beatlechick
Jun 24 2007, 07:53 PM
toad
Jun 24 2007, 07:51 AM
Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM


Quote:
 
8) The video and physical evidence suggesting that controlled demolition was the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers co-exists with testimony form people in those buildings that they heard, felt, and saw the effects of explosions.


I've already suggested an explanation for that. The common witness on the street when their city is under attack is likely to interpret any load noise as an explosion and rightly so. That does not automatically mean that explosive charges were planted in the buildings. No disrespect to those who were there, but we need credible witnesses.


I will just note a few things here: that the firefighters who reported explosions are as close as we are going to get to "credible witnesses." And the witnesses were both inside and outside the buildings when they reported hearing, seeing, and feeling explosions. And while their reports certainly don't automatically mean that there were pre-planted explosives, their reports are part of the whole set of phenomena that we have to explain somehow if we are going to arrive at a satisfactory explanation of what actually happened.

And I'm bemused to see that you do not consider any of the people who were there that day to be credible witnesses. You don't imagine we're going to find *more* credible witnesses now, do you? We have to take account of what some of the people who were actually there report, even as we admit that there are other noises that can sound like explosions.

Regarding the explosions, did you not read my earlier comments about the bodies hitting the building? I now have the dvd of 9/11 where these two french Canadians were filming a documentary on a NYC fire dept just a couple of blocks away from the WTC when the planes hit. They got all of that on film AS it was happening. They were also allowed inside one of the towers when some of the bodies were starting to hit. You could hear the audible boom the bodies made when they landed on top of the building and on the ground. It sounded like an explosion. Even the firefighters and NYPD were thinking so and were ducking for cover. All it was were the bodies, no explosions.

As for debunking the conspiracy theories, of course it will be fought over. This is my country and terrorists hit my country. I refuse to believe anyone until we know the God's honest truth which probably will never ever happen. I don't trust anybody's word especially when common sense says they are probably wrong or ill-informed as in the seismic event. Hitting a building is like playing with blocks. You can make a building strong, as in blocks, but there will always be a weak point no matter what you have been told. A good architect will tell you that and find it on the blueprints. The point is to not show the weak point. Haven't you ever made a building with blocks and taken a lower block out and it still stands? I have, but yet, you try another block and the the whole thing comes crashing down like a pancake. I know a building is not the same as blocks but it makes it easier to explain.

Hi, Beatlechick--

Yes, I did read your post above about the possibility of confusing bodies hitting the ground with explosions. This is the report of Sgt. Sue Keane of the New Jersey Police Department, who had previously been a sergeant in the U.S. Army, and it is about what she heard and felt as she exited the North Tower:

"[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. ... I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. ... There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."

That describes Sgt. Keane getting blown out of the North Tower just before it collapsed.

You think she was mistaken about what she heard and felt?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
One never knows. I do know that some of the bodies did crack the concrete. One was shown falling through a skylight and cracked the floor below. You heard about the penny being dropped off the Empire State Building and cracking the sidewalk? Or killing someone? Well what about a body that weighs a lot more than a penny does. I don't think the penny theory has been completely tested, though. We will never know. There was so much noise and confusion going on at the time that a little noise can be blown out of proportion. Could have had them jumping out of their skin no matter how professional they are. I saw the firefighters and cops jumping thinking there were explosions when it was bodies hitting the roofs, skylights, and concrete.

The film 9/11 is completely unbiased, having already been filming when this was going on. They have nothing to prove but to show what was actually happening at the time it was happening. You see how low the planes were flying as you see the shadow of one of them going down the street where this particular fire dept is. And the fire dept all coming out to watch the impending disaster. You see their frustration because they already had personnel fighting another fire at the time and they could not move as quickly as they would like.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 25 2007, 12:38 AM
Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM
Can I just ask who here has actually put their hand up in support of the official story?  :hmm:



Let me state again - because I'm not sure that it's sunk in - that none of what I have said vindicates the official story. I just know junk science when I see it.  ;)

To my recollection, no one has said they accept the official theory.

But I do see several people, including you, Bill, and Beatlechick, warmly attempting to debunk the central assertions of the alternative theories. This is at the same time as you admit that the Bush administration behaves as though it's hiding something. You seem to want to have it both ways: you certainly don't want to get stuck defending the official theory, but you are vigorous in attacking the alternative theorists' findings and some of their evidence. You have said you find some of the alternative findings convincing, and others not (I'm paraphrasing, and did not go back to find your exact comments on that). You admit that the speed of the towers' falls is a difficult problem, but your personal theory, the pancake theory, doesn't explain the near free-fall speed of collapses, at least not to my common sense, and not to several physicists who have looked at the problem.

See more below.

I think the problem here is binary thinking. You're assuming that if Story A is bullsh*t then Story B must be correct. What I'm saying is that neither stands up to close scrutiny. And the fact that I am applying such scrutiny to all stories presented does not mean that I am taking sides with any of them. There is a lot that is convincing in the conspiracy theories, and a lot that is not. But I don't need to "try" to debunk anything when the theories being presented are junk.

As for the people on the ground, they were scared people who heard bangs. That's all you know. Sorry. It's no disrespect to them but they are not expert, objective witnesses.

And can anyone explain where all the people on the planes went?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MannyDavvi
Member Avatar

I honestly can't believe there's people who think this was a conspiracy. Not even Dale Gribble would think that
<a href='http://eapr-1/@0@Manny@1@Where%20Jojo%20used%20to%20live@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

MannyDavvi
Jun 24 2007, 11:13 PM
I honestly can't believe there's people who think this was a conspiracy. Not even Dale Gribble would think that

Manny--

Everybody thinks it was a conspiracy. It's just that some people think it was an Osama bin Laden conspiracy, and others think it looks like a whole different conspiracy.

Oh, and who is Dale Gribble?

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Bill
Jun 24 2007, 11:08 PM
toad
Jun 25 2007, 12:38 AM
Bill
Jun 23 2007, 06:52 AM
Can I just ask who here has actually put their hand up in support of the official story?  :hmm:



Let me state again - because I'm not sure that it's sunk in - that none of what I have said vindicates the official story. I just know junk science when I see it.  ;)

To my recollection, no one has said they accept the official theory.

But I do see several people, including you, Bill, and Beatlechick, warmly attempting to debunk the central assertions of the alternative theories. This is at the same time as you admit that the Bush administration behaves as though it's hiding something. You seem to want to have it both ways: you certainly don't want to get stuck defending the official theory, but you are vigorous in attacking the alternative theorists' findings and some of their evidence. You have said you find some of the alternative findings convincing, and others not (I'm paraphrasing, and did not go back to find your exact comments on that). You admit that the speed of the towers' falls is a difficult problem, but your personal theory, the pancake theory, doesn't explain the near free-fall speed of collapses, at least not to my common sense, and not to several physicists who have looked at the problem.

See more below.

I think the problem here is binary thinking. You're assuming that if Story A is bullsh*t then Story B must be correct. What I'm saying is that neither stands up to close scrutiny. And the fact that I am applying such scrutiny to all stories presented does not mean that I am taking sides with any of them. There is a lot that is convincing in the conspiracy theories, and a lot that is not. But I don't need to "try" to debunk anything when the theories being presented are junk.

As for the people on the ground, they were scared people who heard bangs. That's all you know. Sorry. It's no disrespect to them but they are not expert, objective witnesses.

And can anyone explain where all the people on the planes went?

I think that binary thinking is not the only problem here. What I am attempting to follow is what I understand of the scientific method. With that, you start with the evidence, and if you're lucky, you arrive at a theory that explains most of the evidence, or all of it. I do think the administration's story is bullfeathers, but I am not claiming to know exactly what happened. I am saying that the hypothesis of controlled demolition explains one heck of a lot more of the evidence we do have than any other theory.

I see that you are not, at the moment, prepared to accept any of the testimony of the people on the ground (or in the towers) at the time the buildings were attacked and then fell, not even fire fighters, who might actually have been present at controlled demolitions. I'm not prepared to discount all their testimony on the grounds that in their excitement it would be understandable if they mistook what they heard for something else. Or on the grounds that a body hitting the ground after having fallen 90 stories will make a loud, explosive sound. There's over a hundred people reporting that the heard, saw, and felt explosions, and their testimony is only part of the evidence I'm considering.

Cheers,
Carol



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

When a building is collapsing, you're going to hear a lot of explosions, with or without explosives. Gas bottles? Power cables? There are lots of things around that can go bang before you even need to think about explosive charges.

All I have ever heard from firefighters about explosions was one sentence quoted out of context. Sorry, but I need more than that.

toad
Jun 25 2007, 01:30 AM

First, there's no one left defending the molten steel theory--I believe the government first mentioned it, but under a barrage of criticism that there was not enough heat, and not enough time, to render structural steel molten, they stopped talking about that, and went to the softened steel assertion.  There was enough heat to soften structural steel, they said.  All the engineers and physicists who look at this assertion say, no there wasn't enough heat, and what heat there was didn't last anywhere near long enough.  In addition, most people are now pointing out that even if you could get the fires inside the building to, say 1200 F, that doesn't mean the steel got anywhere near that temperature, because steel is an excellent conductor of heat.  The steel near the fires would have dispersed the heat to other beams it was connected to, and so not have had to endure 1200 F even for 56 minutes.


I don't recall ever putting forward any molten steel theory. I'm talking about how steel is tempered in a fire. You should check out the results of a fire in a steel framed house. It will stand up during the fire but the day after, it is a twisted, unsalvagable wreck because the steel has warped.


toad
Jun 25 2007, 01:30 AM
The pancake theory, which you seem to like quite a bit, was proposed not by either the FEMA or NIST studies, but by a professor at MIT, Thomas Eager.  You introduced the possiblity that the floors of the buildings, slamming together as they fell, would produce explosive noises.  I agree, but I do not see how you could have had floors pancaking all the way to the ground at 8.5 floors per second, which is, in one scenario, what you would need to get the top floor to the bottom in 10-11 seconds.  One tower was hit at the 85th floor--we will imagine that the top block of 25 floors cut loose as one block, crashed into the 85th floor, and so on down.  85 floors pancaking one at a time is 8.5 crashes per second, in total, if not evenly spaced.

I can't explain that because, as you may have noticed, I'm not an engineer. Equally, no-one has ever done the experiment before so this comes down to an argument between theory and practice. If someone can build an accurate model (not a simulation) of a 100 storey tower and collapse it from the top down, we will then know for certain whether it would collapse at free-fall or at a slowed down speed.

I appreciate and understand the logic behind this but we must also remember that this is the first time is has ever been done. There are always discrepancies between what is predicted in theory and what actually happens when you do the experiment.

I would genuinely like to see someone do the experiment here because this is the best point you make regarding the collapse.

toad
Jun 25 2007, 01:30 AM
And although the design of the WTC towers was never tested by crashing an airplane into it, I believe that the effects of such a crash could be carefully projected from the probable weight and speed of the aircraft, and that good engineers could design in such a was as to try to protect the buildings from total collapse.  The designers definitely supplied both towers with 240 perimeter support columns and 47 central support columns.

The key word here is "probable."
While designers did factor in the possibility of an air strike, it would have been on the assumption that it was accidental and that the pilots would be doing everything in their power to avert the crash, not to score a direct hit. They were designed to withstand probable events, not the improbable ones that occurred. They probably weren't designed to withstand a magnitude 7 earthquake, but that's pretty improbable in New York. That's why they build things differently in San Fransisco.
[aside: that's REAL San Fransisco values for you folks! :P]

toad
Jun 25 2007, 01:30 AM
  Another problem with the pancake theory is where the heck did all that steel go after the collapse?  And for that matter, where were the concrete floor pans, whose frames were welded, not bolted, to the support columns?  Where was the office furniture and the remaining occupants of the buildings? Did we see photos of a 20-story pile of concrete slabs with mashed desks in between the slabs?  No, we didn't.

I'm not aware of a mis-match between the amount of steel that went into construction and the amount of rubble. But if there is a discrepancy, a controlled demolition would not explain it.

As for desks, you've got to be kidding. Can you even begin to imagine what would the average (or even above average) desk would look like after it's had 100 floors fall on it?
They probably didn't find any telephones either, but the people on the ground probably had better things to do at the time than count all the telephones to make sure they matched the number of lines in the building.


toad
Jun 25 2007, 01:30 AM
There was too little rubble, and way too much dust for the pancake theory to work, imo.  What seems to have happened is that most of the mass of both buildings was pulverized, turned to particles the size of flour or talcum powder.  Again, too much energy expended in pulverization to have come from the weight of the floors crashing into each other.  The floors had so much energy to expend--if they used it crushing the floors beneath them, how did the downward thrust manage to pulverize the concrete in the floors and the walls, and apparently the office furniture? 

And although the design of the towers was never tested, the heat resistance of the steel certainly was, by Underwriters' Laboratory, and it passed the test.

What were the parameters of that test? Jet fuel? I suggest not.

As for the dust.... a giant office tower collapsing making dust? Sorry, but DUH!


And let me just say finally that I actually have a lot of time for some of the conspiracy theories put forward and that is why I take issue with people putting forward junk science like there was too much dust and not enough intact desks. Those kind of things cheapen the very good points that are made. The free-fall, I'm in agreement with - that looks suspicious. So please stick to what is really dodgy about this whole thing and spare us the trivia about office furniture. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Bill
Jun 23 2007, 01:52 AM
No disrespect to those who were there, but we need credible witnesses.

None taken. When I watched the first plane hit, I had no idea what was going on. When the second plane hit I did not think, "Oh, no. Terrorists" or "That damn evil government." I believe my first thought was, "What the f*ck?"

Ask any criminal forensic scientist how much they rely on eyewitness testimony. Witnesses are reliably unreliable.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
mozart8mytoe
Jun 24 2007, 06:10 PM
Bill
Jun 23 2007, 01:52 AM
No disrespect to those who were there, but we need credible witnesses.

None taken. When I watched the first plane hit, I had no idea what was going on. When the second plane hit I did not think, "Oh, no. Terrorists" or "That damn evil government." I believe my first thought was, "What the f*ck?"

Ask any criminal forensic scientist how much they rely on eyewitness testimony. Witnesses are reliably unreliable.

I think that was pretty much the collective thoughts of everyone who saw it.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MannyDavvi
Member Avatar

toad
Jun 24 2007, 11:22 PM
MannyDavvi
Jun 24 2007, 11:13 PM
I honestly can't believe there's people who think this was a conspiracy. Not even Dale Gribble would think that

Manny--

Everybody thinks it was a conspiracy. It's just that some people think it was an Osama bin Laden conspiracy, and others think it looks like a whole different conspiracy.

Oh, and who is Dale Gribble?

Cheers,
Carol

Sorry, let me rephrase that. I can't believe there's people who think this was a conspiracy in which the U.S. government was involved in one way or another. Sorry, I don't have any points to give, this is one of those things I try to avoid, it's just that I was at school when this happened (In 8th grade) and we were watching it live when the 2nd plane crashed. Our teacher was horrified 'cuz her sister worked in one of the towers and was all acting delusional making calls from her phone right infront of the class. That experience somehow scarred me, real bad.

Oh, and Dale Gribble is this character in the series "King of the Hill" who's always blaming the U.S. government for every misfortune that happens to any of the characters. He's one of those nuts that's always looking over their shoulder, thinking everything is part of a government conspiracy. I really like the series :blush:
<a href='http://eapr-1/@0@Manny@1@Where%20Jojo%20used%20to%20live@' target='_blank'></a>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
toad

Well, this has been invigorating.

I started the thread to offer my opinion and to supply some sources and links to them. I've done my best to explain some points and to offer some alternative viewpoints. We've had a lively exchange of views, but I don't see that much light is going to be shed on the whole subject by my continued participation.

So, thank you all for playing, and

Cheers,
Carol
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Why the Towers fell
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Adilah
Member Avatar

People who try to change the minds of others are mostly disappointed since it usually fails.
"We call 10 American deaths a catastrophe. One hundred European deaths are a tragedy. One thousand Asian deaths are a shame. And 10,000 African deaths we call a Monday." - Lissa (1981-2007) السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

That animation is impressive but it doesn't explain anything.

The problem I have with such simulations is that they are all based on human assumptions and any factors that have not been considered will not go into the simulation.

There are many instances of engineers thinking they had considered everything, but saying, "bugger me, I didn't expect that!" when it comes to doing the actual experiment. Since we already know what happened to the towers, any simulation would be geared towards recreating what happened that day. I know it's a big ask, but I think what we real need is a scaled down, practical examination.

Now that would be something the Mythbusters could get their teeth into!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"