9/11: Debunking The Myths

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

late getting in on this, but even though two planes DID actually hit the towers, they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. What the designers did not plan on was having charges explode causing the towers to implode. Think about it. Both towers came down within minutes of each other even though the timing between the plane crashes was greater. AND they came down perfecty as though the charges were well planned.

The problem with this argument

"they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. "

is that it assumes simply because that's how they were constructed, they actually would withstand a plane crash.

Its a weak argument because, not only do engineers get it wrong sometimes, planes ain't crashing into buildings on a regular basis, making the response to a plane crash primarily theoretical.

Ever see a film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? This is an example of engineers getting it wrong too, only on a much more spectacular level.

So simply because that's how the engineers constructed it does not mean it will respond in the manner in which it was designed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

Well, I've personally asked construction engineers and people who run companies that build gigantic buildings and structures, and they told me otherwise.

Do you believe the sinking of the Titanic didn't happen? After all, that was supposedly "unsinkable", remember?

 

[Jay]

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

Were they in Iran?

 

[Johnny Utah]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

It takes months of planning and cutting key structural points, planting explosives to bring a building down..

No way in hell that could have been done with WTC 1&2, WTC7 with people still working in the buildings..

National Geopraphic runs a series on a Demolition Family based in the United States who's business is Demolition and you will see you're theory is dead wrong..

As for the 3 Demolition crews you supposedly called, I doubt they said it could be done just like that without explaining what it takes to bring a building down as I pointed out. If they didn't then they were just F-ing with you as you're clearly not the first crackpot to call them with stupid questions like that or they don't know what the hell their talking about in the first place..

 

[Karlin]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

Can you please tell me why Al Queda has claimed over and over that they did it?

And again this week, in that binLaden tape, he said Al Queda did 9-11.

so, ok, I will accept that for now, but in no way does that mean that Bush and Company didn't WANT it to happen, and there is nothing saying BushCo didn't contract AlQueda to do it, teamed up with them.

What motivations would they both have?
- For BushCo, obviously it was a priority to get "all the way to Baghdad" this time, not like the 1991 gulf War.
- for Al Queda, they love to hurt Americans and the symbols of capitalism, so thats enough motivation right there to do 9-11. Also, they could have been tricked into doing 9-11 as a simple act of terrorism, and just didn't realise it was helping Bush out so much...

AS for Al Queda being in cahoots with the Bush Crime Family, that may have been the case for decades. Certainly the Saudis and BushCo have been a team for decades. And the Saudis support AlQueda, right? They sure could have teamed up for 9-11, each getting what they want.

 

[Claudius]

You can toss engineer statements back and forth....the ones who say 'yea' get a movie sound bite, the ones who say 'nay' we don't hear so much....You can roll those clips over and over again...you can argue endlessly not only on the 'evidence' but also what constitutes 'evidence'...You can hash out 'shoulda's and extrapolations of physics, you can even re-engineer physics if you want....


Down this road lies only madness friends. To my mind there is a MUCH simpler way to do this. Far be it from me to deny that human beings likely have an instinct to conspire with one another --- especially those who have power/money they wish to consolidate or protect --- however it is not within human's emotional or intellectual capacity or even instinct to be able to keep a secret. Some can. By in large most can't.

I have a formula I use as a litmus test for conspiracies:


The number of people who would need to be involved in order to carry out the conspiracy.

Multiplied By-

A factor from 1 - 10 representing the 'size' of the secret (that peanut manufacturers might conspire with bar owners to make sure there are peanuts in every bar would rate a 1....not so big....Kennedy? Rate a 8,9 or 10.....9/11? Rates a solid 10).


If you get a number >= 1000 your conspiracy is impossible to keep secret.



.

 

[Karlin]

But thats just a theoretical formula, it is not the real world

Here is another test:
find one person who is willing to give up their pension, their personal and family's safety, just to tell a "conspiracy story" that will be immediately discredited by all the major media.

people just don't risk it. Look at the stories coming out by scientists who say they have been muzzled and discredited - and even just saying THAT MUCH got them a heap of troubles, including being fired [NASA climate change scientist]. And they were just talking GWarming, not a full government crime conspiracy.

And, look how many are speaking up but not being believed.
oh ya, this is how it works, people cannot out the government.

 

[Claudius]

But thats just a theoretical formula, it is not the real world

Here is another test:
find one person who is willing to give up their pension, their personal and family's safety, just to tell a "conspiracy story" that will be immediately discredited by all the major media.

Good points.
Your first point about 'just and abstract formula' is true, however it would be important to note that Canada, UK and the USA at various levels (Pentagon, government, Intelligence services) since the cold war have used a very similar formula to come to a decision regarding how many people to limit information to. By similar I mean that various sensitivity levels of information were limited to a number of people based on an abstract 'common denominator of reliability'.


The point about the risks of 'coming out' and speaking. This is a good point but you overlook the fact that you don't need to come out. If, for hypothetical example, you were one of the engineers required in laying the demolition charges at WTC you could 'leak' the information. Information that sensitive has been leaked in the past....in fact leaks occur all the time and often the only one who get caught are the ones who weren’t really hiding.
A simple phone call or email would be easy to protect anonymity ....one could contact any number of people, movie makers, reporters whoever with a few details that only they could know if they were involved and then disappear....like Deep Throat.

Gotta visualise the reality of it.

(good points tho)


.

 

[Claudius]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

people just don't risk it. Look at the stories coming out by scientists who say they have been muzzled and discredited - and even just saying THAT MUCH got them a heap of troubles, including being fired [NASA climate change scientist]. And they were just talking GWarming, not a full government crime conspiracy.

That's a good point too and aas wrong or even as illegal as it may or not may be these are people who 'came out' as you put it and thusly received a predictible counter reaction. I agree what constitutes that kind of reaction to the thinking of the Bush Admin is pretty scary but still one would not need to 'come out'.



.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Lets not forget what was common when treasure was buried at one time, the participants in a conspiracy like we're discussing could for the most part be dead already.

Personally I think the 9/11 attack was discovered and allowed to happen with help. To me there is way to many holes in the official story. The aspect that convinces me most is the symetrical collapse of the towers from asymetrical impacts.

 

[EagleSmack]

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

Were they in Iran?

I bet they were three laborers that were knocking down a wall and tearing down ceilings at a construction site. Technically they could be called a demolition crew. They were most likely eating lunch up against the building when he asked.

That's my theory.

Besides he is still avoiding my "What actually happened to Flight 77" question.

 

[Claudius]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Lets not forget what was common when treasure was buried at one time, the participants in a conspiracy like we're discussing could for the most part be dead already.

If you saw your fellow conspirators beginning to drop like flies around you would that not give incredible impetus to the risk of 'coming out'. In fact would not 'coming out' offer perhaps your only refuge at that point?


Not sayin'...I'm just sayin'...y'know?


.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

The problem with this argument

"they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. "

is that it assumes simply because that's how they were constructed, they actually would withstand a plane crash.

Its a weak argument because, not only do engineers get it wrong sometimes, planes ain't crashing into buildings on a regular basis, making the response to a plane crash primarily theoretical.

Ever see a film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? This is an example of engineers getting it wrong too, only on a much more spectacular level.

So simply because that's how the engineers constructed it does not mean it will respond in the manner in which it was designed.

8O What are you suggesting Toro... that engineers are not infallable?? :lol: The basics of structural design itself is very well known, in most western countries it is very unlikely that a serious error can occur that would jeopardize a building's overall structural integrity. It is the "other" stuff that can get messed up: like not properly addressing vulnerabilities such as fireproofing of the steel members.

Its easy to design for 'normal' loads like wind, earthquake and gravity loads. It is not as easy to anticipate what kind of terrorist attacks a building might be subject to...

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

Well, I've personally asked construction engineers and people who run companies that build gigantic buildings and structures, and they told me otherwise.

Do you believe the sinking of the Titanic didn't happen? After all, that was supposedly "unsinkable", remember?

Again, you guys are the master to turn a subject to a nut point, what the hell titanic has to do with 9-11?

why arent you just acknowledge what the wtc construction manager has to say about wtc ?

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

It takes months of planning and cutting key structural points, planting explosives to bring a building down..

No way in hell that could have been done with WTC 1&2, WTC7 with people still working in the buildings..

National Geopraphic runs a series on a Demolition Family based in the United States who's business is Demolition and you will see you're theory is dead wrong..

As for the 3 Demolition crews you supposedly called, I doubt they said it could be done just like that without explaining what it takes to bring a building down as I pointed out. If they didn't then they were just F-ing with you as you're clearly not the first crackpot to call them with stupid questions like that or they don't know what the hell their talking about in the first place..

We know for a fact, that building 7 was brought down with explosive, the leaseholder of building 7 admitted it on PBS documentary called ""america rebuild"' and the way it fell, withouth being touch by a plane,at a free fall speed, support what the leaseholder says.

 

[aeon]

I also personnaly called 3 different demolition crew, and they all agree, that Both WTC and WTC 7 could only be brought down with explosives.

Were they in Iran?

In quebec, and quebec is well known for their demolition crews.

 

[darkbeaver]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Lets not forget what was common when treasure was buried at one time, the participants in a conspiracy like we're discussing could for the most part be dead already.

If you saw your fellow conspirators beginning to drop like flies around you would that not give incredible impetus to the risk of 'coming out'. In fact would not 'coming out' offer perhaps your only refuge at that point?


Not sayin'...I'm just sayin'...y'know?


.

They would have been separated upon completion of the task, they may not have known each other or who hired them. If you wanted to come out now who could you trust and anyone addmitting to involvment in this could expect life in prison at the best so I think staying hidden would be smart.

 

[fuflans]

Government conspiracies... hidden explosives... secret missles... missing airplanes... I wonder if Dan Brown could turn it into a best seller?

 

[Substance]

RE: 9/11: Debunking The M

Well then sorry to make a harsh reply again but well what can you do in such a cruel world run by greedy people such as Bush. Well someone didn't want to answer flight 77 question then I will......and besides it isn't fact just because you type it so why are you afraid of posting something?

Well then Flight 77? Was that the plane that "hit" the Pentagon? Ok then well lets see......
Ok then Flight 77 flew as normal and their family is safe since think of this; If there was a dummy plane the impact at the Pentagon would have been much bigger but seeing as how the impact hole is small and long it was cruise missle and detonation. The wall of the Pentagon would have been wide with windows shattered. Those identified corpses would have been all burned to...gas?

Flight 73 (The one that crashed into the field) was forced to fly to Cleveland and off load people there. What happened to the people is mine and your guess but seeing as how theres been proof that Flight 73 reached Cleveland really bothered people who actually did their research.

Twin Towers was hit by a dummy plane with most of the jet fuel burning out of the building so its nearly impossible that it could burn the supports. Even the firefighters claim they got rid of every single small fire and left the building. Firefighters also heard and saw the explosions going off. Well also if it did get burnt don't you think it would of swayed to one side while collapsing?

As much as you want believe everything is done by the terrorist only makes you blind from facts since you only side with one side. Ah well guess we're going back to the "Lead us oh wise one"

edit: That last 2 sentences could be used to fire back at me, I just stabbed myself -.- Ah well I beleived 9/11 when it happened but later learned that it was a planned assault.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths

Again, you guys are the master to turn a subject to a nut point, what the hell titanic has to do with 9-11?

You argued that the WTC was designed to not implode the way it did.

So what?

I use the Titanic as an analogy. The Titanic was designed to "not sink." Yet it did.

Humans are fallible. (And yes Mike, even engineers! 8O 8O ) The fact that people design something to make it unbreakable does not make it so.