[Antiloop33rpm]

The media isn't listening.

I think a more accurate statement would be 'The American media is not listening'. There are plenty of media outlets across the globe that have talked about this issue, have interviewed people, have in fact given it attention. Its been discussed in books and lectures. And even then, there are some progressive media sources and programs in the United States that have talked about this subject.

The big problem is that when the topic is debated and someone working on these theories is asked to discuss it, they do a terrible job. They come off like nutjobs (eg. Alex Jones on CBC Radio recently) or they babble incoherently and dont produce their arguments in sound, logical ways. Its along the same lines as when globalization is discussed and you have to sit and listen to the painful arguments trying to be made by a young anarchist who can read off his script but struggles outside his own predetermined realm.

And if there are so many unanswered questions about this event, why not produce a book or report that again, in a logical, scientific, and intelligent manner raises these questions? Dont even suggest theories. Just report what is, or isnt known. That would probably be a very effective first step in getting the public interested in the subject and demonstrating that the group of people invloved are not just single minded speculators, but genuinely curious to simply have these questions answered. They might find people more receptive to them if they spent less time hypothesising and more time focusing on their method and actual investigative work.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"theories which dont mean a lot until tested."

Well, it's only a matter of time until Dubai builds a scale replica or two...it'll be nice and conveniently located for the terrorists to have another go at it.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

And not that I want to keep this thread going but one last thought. There was a 4th plane, Flight 93 to be exact, which crashed and never made it to its intended target.

Of all the alternate theories for the events of September 11, I have not heard much about this other plane. If in fact it was ment to hit another building that would be prerigged with explosives, such as the WTC, then wouldnt that mean there is a strong possibility that somewhere in a major metropolitan city on the Eastern seaboard of the United States there was a building that was rigged with explosives and then promptly had them removed? If so, that means there is a building with living, breathing evidence of the possibility that explosives were preplaced. Not too mention all the video footage that would be available from that, and all the surrounding buildings.

Or is there some other reason that Flight 93 crashed? Or did it have some other intended purpose. Regardless, it seems to me if you are going to investigate and try to develop an alternate theory too that day this would the exception to the rule that would be desireable in research.

I know Im going to regret asking but is there some explanation offered for Flight 93 or why little time seems to spent investigating the events surrounding it among the alternative theory advocates?

 

[afransen TO]

I think the office line is that they were intending to crash flight 93 into the Capitol Building.

 

[wonderboy905]

Antiloop33rpm, flight 93 was supposidly on course for Washington, it managed to dissapear from radar for quite some time (just like Flight 93) only to re-appear just before it was shot down, or rather "crashed".

Scholars for 9/11 truth point out the following:

- A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

- # A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

Eye witnesse accounts report there were two military jets flying over the area just as the plane was reported to have crashed. A number of US officials have referred to Flight 93 as "being shot down". Even if the plane was going full speed ahead, nose first into the ground, there would still be substantial wreckage, yet none was found. The fact that wreckage was scattered for miles and that there is no clear crash site (other than an empty pit in the ground - have you ever seen pictures of the wreckage) suggest the plane was shot down.

Of course, one would fully expect the US military to be able to intercept a passenger airliner and to take it down over a low population area rather than have it strike a major city, considering the 3 other strikes that day it would seem only logical that this plane was shot down. But why won't the government admit to this? It's very strange. Flight 77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon) wasn't shot down, despite the fact that Dick Cheney knew full well from his white house underground bunker that it was on its way. Again from the scholars for truth (and countless other sources):

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

The thing I find most strange with Flight 93 (although there's tons of oddities about this flight) is the phone call the white house released from a passenger to his mother, the exact transcript reads as:

"Mom? This is Mark Bingham." "I just want to tell you that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys on board and they have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the Airphone," "You believe me, don't you, Mom?" "Yes Mark, I believe you, who are these guys?" "I'm calling you with an Airphone." "You believe me, don't you, Mom?"

When was the last time you spoke to your parents and called yourself by your full name? To me, that is the strangest thing I have seen. Numerous cell phone call logs have been released from Flight 93, which is odd, because it's been proven that at the altitude the calls apparently took place at there would be a 0% success rate of connecting with any of the US cellular carriers. In other words, you can't make cell phone calls from an airliner, you need to use an airphone! Why else would American Airlines invest millions in having cell towers installed onto their planes and advertise this as a feature?

Flight 93 is a total mystery, it was shot down, and if it was truly hijacked in light of the days earlier events, this was the right thing to do... however why are we spoon fed this story of heroic passengers taking over the cockpit and bringing the plane down? Plane crashes leave substantial wreckage, even when they hit the ground at nearly full speed, Flight 93 didn't.

On the topic of the flights themselves, NONE of the autotopsy reports include any of the hi-jackers... even more interesting, the BBC has found and located 5 of the hi-jackers STILL on the official list of hi-jackers as being alive and well. These hi-jackers were myseterious people, maybe that's why one of their passports survived the WTC impact and resulting fire and landed safely on the streets of NYC to be discovered by an officer.... million to one shot?

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Ok. Well that didnt tell me much of anything. I think this is a good time to end.

 

[wonderboy905]

Ok. Well that didnt tell me much of anything. I think this is a good time to end.

Well at least do yourself a favour and watch the following films FREELY available:

Loose Change , 2nd Edition
911 Eyewitnesse

Both are on google video, both can be found on bit torrent for higher quality downloads encoded as DVD or DivX/Xvid/Mpeg4.

911 Eyewitness is particularly shocking because the first 20 minutes or so is nothing but a shot of the WTC towers smoking with a local radio stations programming (in synch with the video) providing the audio. You'll be amazed just by simply watching the towers and listening to the reports (and explosions) at what you never knew, and were never told. The beauty of this is it's so simple, undeniable since it's really happening, yet defies all logic.

Loose Change is a very slick production, ready-made for the big screen and loaded with info, 911 Eyewitnesse is equally compelling, only it lets the evidence that's in plain view for all to see do ALL of the talking.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"I think the office line is that they were intending to crash flight 93 into the Capitol Building."

Only because it happened first in "Debt of Honor."

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Kevin lost his job for writing this.

I'm not surprised. UL is a pretty reputable outfit, and they wouldn't want to be connected to mistruths and inaccuracies like this.

The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.

The test cited is a benchmark, not an absolute standard, and cannot be taken as proof outside it's conditions. The WTC got a lot hotter a lot faster than that test conditions allow for.

Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2).

Depending on the type of steel, it will get soft and lose it's strength a lot sooner than 3000 F.

To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

Actually, you can start forging at less than 1000 F. On top of that, there was a lot of evidence that flashover had been achieved in a number of spaces within the WTC. Flashover occurs at ~1000F.

Nothing spreads heat better than steel, a great way to disperse heat throughout the entire structure requiring massive amounts of heat and energy to cause specific failures in any given area.

I believe you're thinking of something more like aluminum or copper. Steel is actually a fairly poor conductor of heat. local failure from overheating while the rest of the object is fairly cool happens all of the time.

the fact that firefighters had no heat problems when directly confronting the blaze on the upper floors.

They had no heat problems while running up a number of floors in full bunker suits? Have you tried running up even a few in those outfits? You have heat problems even without a fire.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

This is a very, very silly statement. The structures were so redundant they were not compramised at all by the airplane impacts, they were designed to withstand multiple airliner hits.

A couple of things:

Before you call something silly, may I remind you that the structures in question were not redundant.

Hmm... I guess Pearl Harbour had no political justification? What about the Reichstag fire? Operation Northwoods? In most cases of war, a self inflicted wound is used as justification to send the troups out, it's happened all throughout history. In the case of the original desert storm it was just a lie from the gov't passed on by the media. Why should the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan be any different? The troops were oversea's and battle plans drawn up in Afghanistan long before September 11, this was merely coincidence?

You've tossed out some examples from the past. So what? The past is not of concern right now; how about the issue at hand? You are obfuscating on your own topic. Can you really prove that most cases of war are founded upon self-inflicted wounds, as you assert in your above statement?

Conspiracy requires proof. You provide nothing more than a set of unsupported "maybe's." Without proof there is no conspiracy.


Also, your claim that explosives pre-planted in the building were detonated AFTER the impact of the aircraft is meaningless - unless you can explain how those explosive charges managed to survive the severe damage due to the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent intense burning of those floors that followed.

 

[wonderboy905]

A couple of things:
A couple of things:

Before you call something silly, may I remind you that the structures in question were not redundant.

Umm just like any modern office tower they were incredibly redundant and overengineered to withstand substantial damage. The buildings structure had more than 1000 times the mass of the aircraft, designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact and continue standing is hardly surprising, the fact that it suddenly collapsed is (even more so when you consider a 30 story block on one of the towers collapsed on an angle and then proceeded to fall straight down on the rest of the building). Other towers have suffered significantly more damage and more devasting fires and did not collapse.

You've tossed out some examples from the past. So what? The past is not of concern right now; how about the issue at hand? You are obfuscating on your own topic. Can you really prove that most cases of war are founded upon self-inflicted wounds, as you assert in your above statement?

Pearl Harbour, the Vietnam war, Desert Storm... all based on LIES. Operation Northwoods: proof that the the US gov't would attack itself as justification for war. Current war in Iraq? Lies again. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Rumseld was certain there were and told us he would not only reveal their locations but demonstrate the terrorist link to Iraq... none of which has happened. Are you saying we should trust this administration?

Also, your claim that explosives pre-planted in the building were detonated AFTER the impact of the aircraft is meaningless - unless you can explain how those explosive charges managed to survive the severe damage due to the impact of the aircraft and the subsequent intense burning of those floors that followed.

It should be noted that most of the fire/fuel burning occurred on impact and OUTSIDE of the towers themselves, the fires were not intense. An NYC fire department cheif radio'd down that he'd need 2 lines to knock out the fire in the south tower, that's it, 2 lines... the rest of the recording was not released.

The claim for explosives is far stronger than that of collapse.

Official seismic records show activity that could only because caused by explosions anchored to the ground going off in the seconds leading up to the collapses. How is this possible? Were the towers shaking at the core before they collapsed? Of course not. Quite frankly there's no need to dig up that evidence (explosions can be heard coinciding with the same times on the seismic reports), it's obvious no one reading this thread has even taken the time to read the paper Steven Jones has written, thus making it pointless to debate it. I'm not the expert, I just agree that explosives must have been used, there's no other explanation.

If you want to debate Kevin Ryan and others go ahead, I'm sure they'd love to go on air sitting face to face with FEMA and NIST in an open debate (this has actually been proposed, they got no reply) because no one has ever actually explained the collapse of the towers. The Pancake theory is the only evidence presented, and yet it's not possible due to the near free-fall speed the towers collapsed at. The commission didn't even mention WTC 7's mysterious collapse in their report. How could they? Here is a building with very minor damage and a few very small fires that somehow collapses just before officials predicted it would? When the leaseholder has gone on record stating they decided to "pull the building". How could they have possibly of determined that this building was going to collapse when it did when there were no signs of collapse... Of course it collapsed with obvious squibs in perfrect free-fall straight down onto its own footprint in a perfectly symmetrical fashion. If you can explain this you'll win a nobel prize.

 

[bizorky]

Here is what you stated originally:

The structures were so redundant they were not compramised at all by the airplane impacts, they were designed to withstand multiple airliner hits.

Your sentence suggests that the structures were redundant, not that they had reduntant systems built in. Your sentence is just poorly phrased. All redundant systems can be overcome. There is a difference between simulation and reality. Not all simulations match actual situations.

Umm just like any modern office tower they were incredibly redundant and overengineered to withstand substantial damage. The buildings structure had more than 1000 times the mass of the aircraft, designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft

Yes, buildings are designed to withstand considerable damage, but not all possible damage. Comparing wind load to the impact of an aircraft at high velocity is not a realistic comparison.

Pearl Harbour, the Vietnam war, Desert Storm... all based on LIES. Operation Northwoods: proof that the the US gov't would attack itself as justification for war. Current war in Iraq? Lies again. There were no weapons of mass destruction, Rumseld was certain there were and told us he would not only reveal their locations but demonstrate the terrorist link to Iraq... none of which has happened. Are you saying we should trust this administration?

None of this suggests in any way that the U.S. government had anything to do with the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Nothing. What you are attmpting to do is engage in faulty reasoning by way of transfer. Things happened in the past, so it must be the same thing. If you want to make such an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. Pointing to past events is not proof.



You still have neglected to answer how the supposed explosives managed to survive the impact and subsequent burning of the floors they were planted on. If concrete walls, floors and steel structural tubing were destroyed by the impact of a large aircraft, how did these explosives manage to survive for detonation as you assert?

 

[wonderboy905]

None of this suggests in any way that the U.S. government had anything to do with the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Nothing. What you are attmpting to do is engage in faulty reasoning by way of transfer. Things happened in the past, so it must be the same thing. If you want to make such an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. Pointing to past events is not proof.

If an adminstration has lied to us in the past (or in this case, since the events of september 11) you are saying that it is an error to argue that they are likely to have lied or been involved in a cover-up? True, you cannot tell where the road ahead is leading you by only looking in the rearview mirror but when you have an established pattern it's hard to overlook. Mr Rumsfeld was instrumental in the approval of aspartame, which he later made profits to the tune of hundreds of millions off of... all based on corruption from within his work at the FDA. He's lied to us about the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's gone on record stating that a missile hit the pentagon and that flight 93 was shot down... statements he retracted. He's just one person of many in the current adminstration to be caught lying for no apparent reason other than personal gain... Who benefits from war? Obviously the answer is military contractors, to the tune of billions... who are the ones profiting off of them? Could it be the Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's of the world? Could the very people leading their citizens into a war on terror based on false accusations and evidence that never existed, who along with their families and colleagues stand to gain millions of dollars possibly be linked to the events that ignited these false wars to begin with? Is there even a reason to be in Iraq right now? Not really, sure Saddam was a brutal dictator, but there's countless other rulers like him all over the world, why him?

You still have neglected to answer how the supposed explosives managed to survive the impact and subsequent burning of the floors they were planted on. If concrete walls, floors and steel structural tubing were destroyed by the impact of a large aircraft, how did these explosives manage to survive for detonation as you assert?

You are grossly overestimating the extent of the damage caused by the airplanes and the fires. Obviously anything in the way of the impact zones was whiped out, that's a given. If you learn about how buildings are demolished explosive charges are set throughout the entire structure, starting with the foundation (consistant with the eye witnesse accounts that the boiler rooms were blown up prior to the collapse of both towers). Explosives can be detonated via remote devices, there's no need to rely on the buildings power supply to set them off. Explosives would have to have been planted along the entire core (in order to acheive the perfect collapses that occured - buildings like these should fall to the side if they are resulting from a collapse with non-symmetrical damage), I fail to see how the airplanes would have whiped those out over a span of 100 or so floors. Charges are only needed every 20 or so floors, it's entirely possible the airplanes completely missed all of them, if you were planning this don't you think they would have thought of that and not relied on charges around the impact zones to be required bring them down? I can't ever recall seeing someone skeptical of the explosion theory use this as a basis for their argument before... it's interesting but ultimately some quick research on building detonations proves the point to be meaningless.


The answers to just about everyone's questions are all in the paper I posted... This is just further demonstrating that no one has taken the time to read it.

In this video (less than 400k), you can clearly see the tripod shake BEFORE the tower collapses, this coincides with the seismographic records from the day as well as audible explosions that were recorded. Multiple camera's all have this similar effect, can you offer any explanations for it other than a pre-collapse detonation?

www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv

 

[andreapalladio]

How do you know the camera was on a tripod? It was a terrifying day. Camera people shake when afraid.

 

[wonderboy905]

How do you know the camera was on a tripod? It was a terrifying day. Camera people shake when afraid.

lol, ok, then I guess several people all "shook" while simultaneously getting affraid strangely enough just before the tower collapsed (they must have known!) despite having a perfectly still shot for minutes on end.

*edit*, if you're still not buying into the explosion theory give this site a look, nothing more than some raw footage and audio captures are required to clearly illustrate explosions going off.

Under the section West Street there is a caption that says "A significant visual feature of the West Street clip is the appearance of "jets" of air and/or other material emanating from the çde, far bellow the zone of destruction above." and the accompanying picture, how can you explain that?

www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html