Never Forget

[dseagrav]

explain how black programs stay black then?

Because they're done by Lockheed or Boeing and not the government.

 

[big_al]

Because they're done by Lockheed or Boeing and not the government.

oh right, at lockheed or boeing airfields with lockheed or boeing pilots

once the government got ahold of the B-2 and F-117A... they couldnt keep a secret, right???

you fail

 

[dseagrav]

you fail

gb2/b

 

[big_al]

so basically you are claiming the military is full of snitches

 

[dseagrav]

so basically you are claiming the military is full of snitches

When it comes to murdering a few thousand of your own countrymen - YES.

 

[waverider]

Time for Moderation

Ok, maybe I went too far in suggesting that there was a connection with these events and agencies of the U.S. Gov’t. I understand this is an emotionally charged topic, so I will refrain from making suggestions such as that when there is insufficient evidence to support that opinion. There’s no doubt that the hijackings took place, they were most certainly very real. What I am postulating is that the laws of physics are undeniable. If the data and the data analysis presented in the video footage is accurate then, yes, I think we need to consider that maybe there’s more to what occurred than we realize.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12018.htm

 

[waverider]

It's Kid C back from the grave!

Let me turn the table... why do you choose to believe this outlandish fabrication that it was a govt conspiracy when the overwhelming evidence points to a solo al-quaeda operation?

Ponder this - if the idea is a "pretext to go to war, get the oil" - why not release some nerve agent at a mall or sporting event. Clean, simple, and massive casualties, with a low likelihood of being caught.

Next, the gov't investigators "link" the nerve agent to al quaeda, and further determine that it was supplied by Iraq. Score! Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.

The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

Give it a rest. It wasn't a conspiracy of the U.S. gov't or those evil jewish bankers. In case you didn't know, a lot of Jews died that day. They didn't have secret knowledge.

I take exception to your last comment, “I realize you despise the U.S. Gov't.” That is your opinion, and you are can think what you like. I am proud of this country and what it stands for, just as much as much as any other law abiding citizen of our nation is. But, I will not just blindly accept whatever is information is fed to us, like sheep in a paddock, when I see that there is sufficient evidence that calls into question the official version of the events that transpired. I don’t have all the answers, but I do think a healthy dose of skepticism can be beneficial in certain instances to uncover truths about the world that we live in. We’d still be living very much in the dark ages if it were not for the inquisitive minds of scientists and scholars of the past utilizing paradigms such as this and seeking out the truth; and we should not stop now because of convenience. Our civilization could not have advanced as far as it has without the questioning minds that went against the grain of popular opinion. Were it not for that you may not have had the luxury of arguing your position today over an electronic mass communications medium that is the internet. A case in point is Benjamin Franklin, who was a revolutionary thinker, questioner, and philosopher who dared to question the established consensus. He was also a scientist that discovered electricity and who also happened to be one of the founding fathers of our great nation. Let’s not forget where we came from

 

[waverider]

It's Kid C back from the grave!

Let me turn the table... why do you choose to believe this outlandish fabrication that it was a govt conspiracy when the overwhelming evidence points to a solo al-quaeda operation?

Ponder this - if the idea is a "pretext to go to war, get the oil" - why not release some nerve agent at a mall or sporting event. Clean, simple, and massive casualties, with a low likelihood of being caught.

Next, the gov't investigators "link" the nerve agent to al quaeda, and further determine that it was supplied by Iraq. Score! Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.

The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

Give it a rest. It wasn't a conspiracy of the U.S. gov't or those evil jewish bankers. In case you didn't know, a lot of Jews died that day. They didn't have secret knowledge.

With regard to your statement “Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.”

It is obvious that you have not taken the time to watch the entire footage found in the documentary viewed via the link in my original post, so I will elaborate on some of the details here. According to the analysis the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 as a controlled demolition would have required approximately 2.7 tons and 1.4 tons of TNT to generate the seismic shockwaves recorded of 2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter scale, respectively. That is approximately 8200 lbs (1 Ton=2000lbs) of TNT in total. Agreed, this is still a sizeable amount, but it is significantly less (by at least half) than the “tens of thousands of pounds of explosives” that you are suggesting it would take. Read the following article (the relevant info is highlighted in red):


http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

 

[waverider]

The impacts of the jet airliners caused a shockwave of 0.9 and 0.7 on the Richter scale respectively. In other words the seismic energy of each impact was the equivalent of less than 30lbs of TNT, an obviously insufficient amount of energy to cause each tower to collapse with that alone. The weapon used in the 1993 WTC bombing, was much larger (a 1310lb urea nitrate fuel-oil device) and even though it killed 6 and injured over 1000 people there was no collapse on that occasion.

 

[waverider]

Then what about the ensuing fires?

But, what about the fires that burned as result of the ignited jet fuel? In order to melt the steel structure an internal temperature of between 2600-3000 F degrees would have had to have been reached over a consistent period of several hours. Yet the buildings collapsed in just one hour. While it is possible that temperatures as high as these were reached, we can only speculate as to what the actual internal temperatures really were. However, there is circumstantial evidence that suggests that the temperatures in the impact regions were not as hot as the official reports assumed. Several eye-witness statements of survivors that escaped support this (the relevant info is highlighted in red):

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

 

[waverider]

It's Kid C back from the grave!

Let me turn the table... why do you choose to believe this outlandish fabrication that it was a govt conspiracy when the overwhelming evidence points to a solo al-quaeda operation?

Ponder this - if the idea is a "pretext to go to war, get the oil" - why not release some nerve agent at a mall or sporting event. Clean, simple, and massive casualties, with a low likelihood of being caught.

Next, the gov't investigators "link" the nerve agent to al quaeda, and further determine that it was supplied by Iraq. Score! Instant afghan and Iraq war, just like we have now, without the ridiculous, complex, and risky act of faking multiple hijackings, and loading the towers (undetected) with what would have to be tens of thousands of pounds of explosives.

The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

Give it a rest. It wasn't a conspiracy of the U.S. gov't or those evil jewish bankers. In case you didn't know, a lot of Jews died that day. They didn't have secret knowledge.

Regarding your comment: “The conspiracy loons point to the pancake-style of implosion on the towers as "proof." Don't you think they'd have placed the explosives”sloppily and in such a way that the towers would tip over rather than implode? More realistic, greater casualties?

That is my point exactly. The analysis reveals that the way the towers fell was not consistent with Newton’s laws of motion. So why didn’t the towers tip over in whole sections as they should have if it was just caused by failure of the steel structure due to fire in the regions at the point of impacts? I think you ought to review the video analysis again. Also the following info makes for some interesting reading (the relevant info is highlighted in red):

http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm


One aspect that I think that we can both agree on is that the narrator who captured the video footage made several subjective statements that I think are incorrect. Such as his theory that the collapse of the towers was possibly nuclear in origin, and his belief that something other than an airliner must have impacted the Pentagon is inaccurate at best. I am more concerned with the data analysis made by the objective 3rd party. Herein is the basis of my contention that there seems to be more to what occurred than what the generally accepted official reports on the events indicate.

 

[dseagrav]

But, what about the fires that burned as result of the ignited jet fuel? In order to melt the steel structure an internal temperature of between 2600-3000 F degrees would have had to have been reached over a consistent period of several hours.

Except that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. Otherwise how would a hot start of only 800-1000 degrees destroy a jet engine?

The steel never melted. It simply weakened to the point where it can't hold up the weight of the towers (plus occupants, plus airplane remains, plus office equipment, etc) anymore.

 

[waverider]

In closing

I urge everyone reading this to view the entire footage and read through the documents presented and then draw your own objective conclusions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12018.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

 

[Gorilla]

Except that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. Otherwise how would a hot start of only 800-1000 degrees destroy a jet engine?

The steel never melted. It simply weakened to the point where it can't hold up the weight of the towers (plus occupants, plus airplane remains, plus office equipment, etc) anymore.

Bingo. This is why jet engine turbine sections are made from very exotic and expensive nickel chromium alloys, and not plain steel. Steel loses its strength VERY quickly at elevated temperatures.

An EGT/Turbine temp of 800 C = 1472 f. If we must take steel to your quoted temp of >2600 f. for it to fail, well heck let's make the turbine blades from cheapo steel. Oh wait, the steel WILL fail at MUCH lower temps than that required to melt it, when it is under stress.

The pancaking effect is due to the way the towers were constructed. This has been demonstrated via simulation and verified by expert structural engineers over and over.

Please address my initial question. Why execute an elaborate, extremely difficult, and perilous conspiracy that counts on incredible timing and precision, when two guys in a van could leak 100 lb of VX gas at a football game, and generate the necessary excuse for the U.S. to go "grab the oil?"

By the way, don't put words in my mouth. I never said “I realize you despise the U.S. Gov't.”

 

[waverider]

Except that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength. Otherwise how would a hot start of only 800-1000 degrees destroy a jet engine?

Agreed, but consider the following quote:

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not (fire) protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 1,500-1,700�F (800-900�C) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 1,100�F (600�C), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments [1].

One of the conclusions derived from the Cardington tests, was that fire protection for the beams (trusses) in a composite steel structure, was not necessary. See below for more on this.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm