You are hereBlogs / Martin's blog / Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate
Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate
This page was temporarily suspended due to bandwidth issues caused by an insane number of people trying to come here from I-am-bored.com. Sorry, for the trouble, but my finger is still on the kill switch if I get another crazy surge...
Ever since the twin towers came down, conspiracy nuts have gone to town, pouring over photos and youtube videos in an attempt to prove that the global Salafi Jihad movement wasn't responsible for the attacks, and that some unspecified agents - usually the government, Jews, CIA or some combination of the above - were. In spite of all the conspiracy websites in existence though, not one has managed to come up with any definitive evidence that contradicts the official story.
I don't really want to go through the whole 9/11 nonsense here, but inspired by my general annoyance at the topic, I thought I'd present a little run down of the top ten photos conspiracy theorists don't want to deal with (click the photos to see larger versions). I don't claim that this page somehow proves the official story to be right, nor that it proves conspiracy theories wrong, but it gives some neat examples of why it's hard to take some of these people seriously.
1. Flight 77 wreckage (from the landing gear) at the Pentagon. Conspiracy theorists used to argue that no plane ever hit the Pentagon, claiming that there was no visible debris at the site. They seem to have retreated from this claim in the last couple of years.
2. Debris from the Twin Towers falling onto WTC7. Many conspiracy theorists still believe that fires and debris couldn't have reached WTC7 (the tall building lower-right) to inflict significant damage, claiming that WTC7 must have been subjected to a controlled demolition.
3. WTC6 lies in ruins. Conspiracy theorists have also argued that WTC7 couldn't have been struck by debris since WTC6 - which lies between the twin towers and WTC7 - "wasn't that damaged". Note that the center has entirely collapsed. In spite of evidence like this, and reports from fire-fighters, who used instruments to measure the gradual movement and distortion of WTC7's structure over several hours up until its collapse, Truthers still prefer to believe that a controlled demolition occurred.
4 & 5. Fires rage in WTC5 and WTC6. Many conspiracy theorists refuse to accept that fire could have spread to WTC7, even though fires clearly raged across much of the WTC complex.
6. Plume from the Flight 93 Crash. As witnesses looked on, Mrs McClatchey took this shot from her porch. Ever since, conspiracy theorists have harassed and threatened her, even anonymously posting her phone number and photos of her home on blogs. They claim that the evidence must be faked, as it is inconsistent with their theory that a missile brought down the aircraft. (which would have resulted in fragments of the plane coming down over a wide area), and have subjected Mrs McClatchey to a torrent of abuse.
7. A seatbelt from the wreckage of Flight 93. Hundreds of volunteers spent days and weeks combing the area, collecting wreckage amounting to virtually the entire plane, now in the possession of the airline (with the exception of the black boxes which are held by air safety officials. Some conspiracy theorists believe that all of the local residents in the area are liars, along with all the airline workers, local police and emergency services, coronors, and air safety experts involved in the operation to recover the aircraft, and the analysis of flight data and materials recovered.
8. Sagging floors in WTC2. As the heat in the towers increase, steel supports were weakened causing buckling, as evidenced by the sagging floor visible here. This weakening led to the structural failure of the building. Conspiracy theorists claim that the buildings should have survived these structural failures, and believe that thousands of explosive charges were rigged inside the building, with a control system to detonate them somehow surviving the impact and fires.
9. Workmen cutting beams in the wreckage. Conspiracy theorists are for some reason obsessed with the idea that thermite was used in 9/11, in spite of the fact that thermite is used for cutting and welding, and never in demolitions (indeed, it would be practically impossible to set it up). They cite neatly cut beams as evidence of thermite being used, but ignore the fact that beams were neatly cut up by workmen operating after the collapse.
10. Debris out-paces the collapse of the tower. Many conspiracy theorists claim that the World Trade Center towers fell equal to (or ludicrously faster than) free-fall speeds. Many photos clearly show falling debris out-pacing the collapse of the building, proving that the structures fell at well below free-fall speeds.
Ultimately this sort of blogging is an exercise in futility. There is no evidence, no matter how convincing, that will ever be accepted by the 9/11 "Truth" Movement's hardcore evangelists. The irony is that the people who claim to be searching for the truth are so willing to ignore evidence and react angrily to those with conflicting evidence and testimony.
A bigger irony is that if there is a conspiracy, truthers with their deluge of disinformation are doing more than anyone else to help cover it up.
So the number of kamas dofus times my rogue has had attacks parried or dodged from dofus kamas behind their target while in stealth never happened. Got it. that's because you dofus kamas didn't position yourself right!if you stand inside the mob or too close, your weapons can go through it, and you will get Lord of the Rings Online Gold parried etc.This idea Kerrigan had LOTRO Gold against heavy units came after she witnessed Terran Armor Annihilators tear through some Ultalisks very easily. This fly for fun penya new member of the swarm was engineered directly towards flyff penya eliminating heavy units. The only drawback is to the Protoss with Twilight Archons. However since the Infiltratorlisk jumps inside and tears Final Fantasy XI gil a hole then destroys the heavy unit would mean that the Infiltratorlisk could be used against Immortals, evening ffxi gil things up with the Armor Annihilator not being able to attack Immortals but could attack Twilight Archons well.thats Lord of the Rings Online Gold my Zerg unit for my heavy unit counter idea, I hope you enjoy This unit would be the protoss equivalent to LOTRO Gold the Armor Annihilator and the Infiltratorlisk. The Hyper Destroyer would be mechanical and would fire flyff penya from one photon cannon at the top. However this photon cannon wouldnt be a photon cannon it would be a charged buy flyff gold weapon to fire at enemy ffxi gil heavy units. It would take about 3-5 seconds buy ffxi gil for the weapon to get fully charged. During Lord of the Rings Online gold those three seconds a large LOTRO gold ball of deadly energy will mass in front of the photon cannon then after 3-5 seconds will fire, doing much more fly for fun penya damage in one blow but taking more time. Since this cannon takes a while to use, small units wil be able to overpower it easily, as all that power flyff penya is used on only 1 unit where it isnt neccesary. The Hyper Destroyers cannon activates Immortals shields so it is not usefull The Protoss Final Fantasy XI gil seeing that Terrans and Zerg apparently had some sort of heavy unit destroyer decided to develop one of their own. The Protoss ffxi gil realized that weren't as strong as what a protoss could come up with but faster firing.
Apologies if this point has been made somewhere else. I've been trying to read all the posts because there are some fascinating arguments for and against both sides. But I have just one point that struck me regarding the Pentagon strike.
If the U.S.Government wanted to scotch 33% of the "truthers" arguments, surely they could release one frame of one of the security films confiscated from the Pentagon security cameras that clearly show a Boeing on it's collision course with the side of the building? Is there a reason why they prefer to have all this confusion and "wacky" theories floating around to cause more of a smokescreen?
Perhaps they already have done, I'm sorry I'm new to all this. You see I was always of the opinion that anybody that said there was a conspiracy was a nutjob. But that was before seeing a documentary that introduced me to some of the arguments. Now, after a bit of digging, I am becoming increasingly uneasy and like to call myself an answer seeker.
With that in mind perhaps the good people reading this could take some time to compare these two videos on you tube. They are concerned with the Pentagon strike. The first is just the security footage the second is a computer simulation with some security camera footage part way through. They appear to be two different cameras but both located at the security gate. They obviously offer different perspectives. However, where the second shows the blurred outline of what it claims to be the tail fin, the other video shows no evidence of that. In fact you can pause both videos at virtually the same frame of the attack and see what purports to be the tail fin on one, appears simply to be the treeline or building line on the other. The white smoke appears in both. But in the first film there is no obvious plane and unlike the second video where a secuirty gate post blocks the view completely (other than the tip of the alleged tail fin) the first film has no obstruction to view.
Its also interesting to note in the second film that the comupter generated mockup superimposed on the video footage shows what purports to be the tail fin and if accurate there should also be a nose poking out from the left hand side of the secuirty gate post. But that nose is curiously absent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&feature=related
- 9/11 Pentagon Attack: A Closer Look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related
- 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
I realise either or both of these films could have been altered and that is the problem with any of this debate, but I'd like to hear what you all think nonetheless, and again, apologies if some or all of these answers already appear
And what about this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9jW_8ZCUmg
Can anybody tell me whether this has been debunked yet? It's comparison of the same two videos juxtaposed and supposedly frame for frame with events occuring at different times.
Anybody know any background or can tell me anything?
I agree that the comparison seems to suggest editing, specifically, the removal of perhaps key frames, but IMO the evidence isn’t overwhelmingly compelling due to the very poor quality of the videos and the high speed of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon. To me such widely-documented anomalies as the size of the initial impact hole, the extreme skill that would have been required for Hani Hanjour, who could reportedly barely fly a Cessna, to pull off such a difficult (some airline pilots say “impossible”) maneuver into a section that had just been re-inforced, almost diametrically opposed to the SecDef’s office. Even if he could somehow pull it off (and common sense says he couldn’t, given the known facts), why would he? Why not just dive into the roof, or hit the other side, which wouldn’t have required a steep, banking turn? Who would plan such an attack, which on the face of it had virtually no chance of success? (For that matter, the same goes for the attacks on the Twin Towers, too.) And why won’t the FBI release at least one of the many seized tapes? What possible security risk could there conceivably be after all these years? Even if they don’t conclusively prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, why not release the tapes anyway to prove that point, rather than continue to allow millions of people worldwide to speculate that the withheld tapes must contradict the official story?
IMO, all these points are more evidential than anything shown by comparing these two tapes. At best it is an interesting crumb to add to the pile of anomalous information already out there. Be that as it may, one huge question remains: If Flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon, then what happened to it? I really haven’t heard a good answer to that, and it’s why I don’t spend too much time on the Pentagon.
In my opinion, the evidence that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down with cutting charges and explosives is so overwhelming that only the willfully ignorant would argue otherwise. For instance, anybody with eyes can see the Twin Towers explode floor by floor from the point of impact to the ground, shooting out great arcs of pulverized and near-pulverized ejecta as they collapse at near free-fall speed (see photo no. 2 above) What tremendous energy pulverized the concrete to fine dust, while simultaneously ejecting material away from the buildings? All this kinetic energy is no longer available to continue the vertical collapse, nor is much of the material itself! Yet even NIST acknowledges that the Twin Towers were “overbuilt”. Indeed, as would be expected, the support columns at the base were far thicker and heavier at the base than at the point of impact. Yet the floors exploded sequentially, without so much as a hesitation, from the impact point to the bottom. And then this extraordinary trick was repeated with the second tower.
What does NIST have to say caused these totally unexpected, remarkably smooth, orderly, floor-by-floor collapses? It claims that the collapses were too “chaotic” to model, so it only models to the point of collapse, and even then it’s forced to use extremely high temperatures unjustified by the evidence (for example the observed dense, black smoke is indicative of an oxygen-starved fire, and there is video of at least one person standing on a beam in the gaping hole waiting to be rescued).
And what does NIST have to say about physicist Steven Jones’ analysis strongly indicating traces of a sophisticated form of the Naval cutting charge Thermate? It ridicules it. Based on what? Well, nothing, actually. You see, they never bothered to check for ANY cutting charges or explosives. This despite the fact that nobody anticipated the buildings’ collapse.
Why not? Because, NIST says,
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html
“We ran detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios. What you see in this slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses.”
This is disingenuous. One would not use explosives to “cripple a critical column”. One would of course use a cutting charge, which is not notably loud. Explosives are used merely to move the cut sections out of the way. Perhaps NIST didn't know that. You think?
And what hard evidence did NIST have that the high temperatures they claimed must have been reached in the fires? Virtually none. Why not? Well, NIST claims it was because (despite the Fire Marshall and many other officials telling him not to), Mayor (and ex-US Attorney) Rudy Giuliani had all the debris removed from this major crime scene to a Staten Island landfill, which was then guarded (yes, guarded!) until it was hastily shipped to China and recycled. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
Then there’s NIST’s pathetic “analysis” of the collapse of Building 7, in which they model the structure twisting and buckling in on itself before it collapses, when even the original partially obscured collapse video showed this didn’t happen.
And now a video newly released on November 1 makes a complete mockery of their “model”.
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20081106_details_collapse_footage.htm
Of course, there’s tons more evidence, but I fear I’ve already gone on too long. Thanks for your post!
And of course, at every twist and turn, there is someone ready to pour scorn on to anybody who might dare to suggest something doesn't quite add up with the observable evidence.
You're right. Since I posted those last comments I have looked further into it and I think WTC7 is a clear key to unravelling the mystery. Like I said originally, until a few days ago if someone had suggested to me they were a "911 conspiracy theorist" I would have been the one pouring the scorn, but that was until I was made aware of the core issues, like structural collapse v demolition, etc. and have since tried to avail myself of the information and arguments for and against that are available.
I have noticed that some people like to deride the fact that "information" is obtained from the internet. But if you are intelligent at filtering the "seemingly good" from the "seemingly bad" I don't see the problem. There is a helluva a lot of well thought out and well researched information if you want to find it. You can ignore the "Star Wars death ray" stuff if you choose but there are undeniable questions surrounding the collapse of WTC7 which then lead you naturally to start questioning the collapse and what initiated it on WTC1 and WTC2. And that in turn leads you to ask questions of the whole 911 event.
And I was reading a piece the other day concerning the contents of NISTs new WTC7 report, where it apparently now says that in WTC7 the beams expanded pushing the sides out, no sagging was present - which is different to the reaction proposed in their original report on WTC1 and 2 talking about sagging beams.
Also a video of a lecture given about the collapse (available at www.AE911Truth.org - Architects and Engineers for 911 truth) asks the question based on an analogy of dropping a 15 storey building from a crane suspended over nothing versus dropping the same building suspended over another 85 storey building built with equal construction. Which would hit the ground first? Logically you would think that the one with nothing underneath it would hit the ground first. The one with the 85 storeys underneath would surely provide a smidgeon of resistance to the fall, at least pushing it away from its vertical plunge? But no they both hit the ground at the same time (based on the laws of physics). It definitely raises the question how? Even if you can't provide the answer - who?.
Anyway, the bottom line for me is that until a few days ago I was ignorant. Now I have more knowledge of the arguments for and against. And one of those arguments is regarding WTC7, WTC1 and WTC2 and how they collapsed. Regardless what one thinks, the questions are not being answered - and like you point out the government could surely put an end to speculation re: the Pentagon strike simply by realeasing one frame of one confiscated film. I think I suggested the same thing somewhere else on one of these forums.
Thanks for your comments and reply
Who cares anymore about opinions and who agree and disagree if the Government dont give the truth to his own citizens and dont explain the dozens of coincindences or show the photos of plane hiting pentagon etc etc etc
Why bother agreeing or disagreing if you dont know the truth or have any concrete evidence of terrorist atacks. FBI dont have evidences of Bin Laden being conected to the atacks...
But bah, this is what they do. Create opinions and agrees and disagrees, while people are agreeing and disagreing they cant see even a terrorist in front of their eyes.
So go on! Keep with your no evidence claims and make propaganda about terrorism and terror to see if you can fright me or any conscious citizen.
Whats this site called????????????? SCIENCE???????
Youre kiddin me honey??????........
just ridiculous....
and funny.... are you payed for this ????
go find a job sweetie.... open your eyes
INSIDE BLOW (up)-JOB
kisses
Shit!!!! you are one STUPID: Not one evidence on this site wich is proven by the author.....just silly photographs and your personal OPINION!!!!
WAKE UP OR GO DIE!!!!!!!!
why dont you join the army in iraq???
you belong there bitch!!!! this is stupid!!!!
theres only one truth....and im not blind
Martin, please show your readers and commenters a little courtesy and remove all this spam!!! Why on Earth would you want to leave it there, man?
Thanks, Martin!
THANKS FOR WHAT????????????????
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH
Martin, on Sat, 08/30/2008 at 05:57, under the heading 911 WTC Total Tower Collapse, retired physics and chemistry instructor Chuck Boldwyn posted a lengthy and careful analysis purporting to demonstrate the impossibility of the collapse of the Twin Towers from fire and structural damage from aircraft collisions alone. In his closing remarks he states, "Your intelligent response to this research and conclusions is welcome."
Are you planning to give such a response, or is Boldwyn's post too technical for you to follow?
Just passing by, after all this months. Let's pick up the funs stuff again. I'll take up the challenge.
Mildly put, Boldwyn's analysis is flawed at several levels. To be fair, it is complete rubbish:
1) His analisys is static; he only considers static loads. (Put your left thumb on the table and take a hammer in your right hand. Lay the hammer on your left thumb. Now, raise your right hand, and smash the hammer onto your left thumb. That's the difference between static and dynamic load your are feeling). He should have studied the dynamic load, that is, the forces excerted on a concrete floor that is hit by ~20-30 stories piece of skycraper that is racing towards earth.
2) His static analysis is flawed, again at several levels:
a) He claims that Live weight = 5 times the Dead weight. (5 being the alledged safety factor given by Ronald Hamberger: "before being damaged, the Towers could support 5 times their own weights.")
This claim is plain silly. The live weight equals the dead weight PLUS the weight of the furniture etc.
b) Already going astray with the live weight, he now is completely losing it with this "Collapse Load" thing.
He computes the live load of the lower 95 floors "giving 31 Force Units of upward Anti-Collapse Force, also termed Supportive Force", A Force Unit being defined as the dead weight of the upper 15 floors.
Boldwyn does not seem to have understood the significance of his opening definitions F = mg, F = ma and Action = - Reaction.
For if the lower 95 floors excert an upward force on the upper 15 floors 31 times the dead weight of the upper 15 floors these lower floors will excert an upward force of 31/5=6 times the live weight of the upper 15 floors. By F = ma, F being 6 times greater than the weight mg, the upper floors would be propelled upwards by 5 g's. In reallity, in a static situation, the upward force the lower 95 floors excert on the upper 15 floors are exactly equal but opposite: Action = -Reaction. As when a hammer rests on a table: the upfwards force that the table excerts on the hammer is exactly equal (but opposite in direction) to the weight of the hammer.
Even more of this earth he gets (by 126 g's, as we will show) when he computes the "Collapse Load" of the lower 95 floors. This "CL_95" quantity is defined to be 20 times the live load ("LL_95") of the 95 lower floors and computed to equal 633 times the dead weight of the upper 15 floors. Giving us "633 FU (of anti-collapse Force of Resistance or Collapse-Load, In Force Units, that are in multiples of one 15-Floor-Block)". After this masterpiece of number jugling the lower 95 floors excert a force 633 times greater than the dead weight of the upper 15 floors. By virtue of F = ma, this means the upper 15 floors are propelled upwards by a force 633/5=127 times larger than its weight, giving it an accelaration of 126 g's. That's going to take him of this earth quite rapidly indeed.
In reality, Action = - Reaction holds. The force the lower 95 excert on the upper 15 floors is exactly equal to the weight of the upper 15 floors, albeit opposite in direction.
If Boldwyn where right we could fill the lower 95 floors with molten lead, greatly increasing the live weight of the lower 95 floors, thus greatly increasing the Collapse Load of the lower 95 floors, thus making the building even more resiliant to collapse.
Molten lead doesn't add to the structural strength of a building.
I reallity, the resiliance of a building to collapse is determined by the stresses the materials it is made of are capable to sustain without breaking or buckling, not by the weight of lower floors multiplied by several safety factors from different sources.
c) Boldwyn doesn't take the structural damage and weakening done by the airliners and subsequent fires into account. As if a statement that a building is capable of carrying its own weight 5 times over still holds after it has been hit and set ablaze by an airliner.
Boldwyn's "careful analysis" is thus just crap.
In fact, it scores nicely on the crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html. All this Physics textbook definitions that he doesn't use and violates in his analysis, the Great Self Defined Concepts, with initial caps and all. Great points.
Peter, I suggest you read Boldwyn's analysis a little more carefully, with an open mind. Your critiques simply don't stand up. For instance, Boldwyn's analysis is not based on static loads, as you suggest, and his formula doesn't contradict your assertion that "The live weight equals the dead weight PLUS the weight of the furniture etc." It's all downhill from there, I'm afraid. Peace.
Praise anything that is consistent with your beliefs and dismiss with
blanket statements anything that disagrees with your beliefs.
And when your statements are not of the sweeping type it is propospurous nonsense:
Boldwyn:
"DL_110 = Dead-Load weight of one WTC Tower of 110 Floors
= Weight of one Unoccupied & Unfurnished Tower"
"LL_110 = Live-Load weight of one WTC Tower of 110 Floors
= Weight of one Fully-Occupied & Furnished Tower
= 5*(DL110)"
5 being Mr. Ronald Hamberger's aleged safte factor ( "before being damaged, the Towers could support
5 times their own weights".)
Thus:
Dead_load = weight of unoccupied, unfurnished tower.
Live load = weight of occupied, furnished tower.
Reallity: Weight of occupied, furnished tower = weight of unoccupied, unfurnished tower + weight of the furniture etc. Thus Live_load = Dead_load PLUS the weight of the furniture etc.
Boldwyn's Live_Load = safety_factor * Dead_load is thus just crap. It is simply number joggling nonsense.
Reallity and Boldwyn's version of it are difficult to reconsile: we should believe that out of this 550000 tonnes of tower 440000 tonnes were furniture, to miraculously match the safety factor 5.
Ergo, your "contradiction" claim is just nonsense.
In typical conspiracy nut style you make a wild, sweeping statement that Boldwyn's "analysis" is not static while failing to demonstrate where his analysis is dynamic. The reason of your failure being there is not a single word devoted to the dynamics of the events. Despite your handwaiving, Boldwyn "analysis" is static.
If anything you have been able to achieve is convince me that the "GWB don'it" theory has no merit: you and your fellow nutcases have brought forward nothing but baloney in support of it. And when the failing of your beloney is spelled out to you in every detail you counter with more baloney.
You and your fellow clowns are a bunch of morons.
So I gather your objection is that Boldwyn's generous consideration of the LLW as the DLW + the maximum PERMISSIBLE live load, rather than the DLW plus the ACTUAL weight of office furniture, etc. in these half-empty buildings. (No mention of a safety factor, BTW). Surely using a MUCH LOWER figure for the LLW, as you would wish, would make the likelihood of collapse to the ground even less, if such a thing were possible. Perhaps you could explain to me where I'm wrong. BTW, because nobody knows the ACTUAL load on the TWIN Towers at the time of collapse, only that they would have been considerably LESS than the maximum permissible, Mr. Boldwyn uses the higher figure. If the calculations work with the higher figure, then they'll also work with the lower one, so Mr. Bodwyn's "number joggling" is perfectly acceptable.
I agree that "Live_Load = safety_factor * Dead_load is just crap." Actually, Peter, it's YOUR crap. You have apparently confused the maximum permissible live load with the safety factor. Boldwyn, on the other hand, says,
"WTC Chief Engineer, John Skilling, as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964:
"Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."
(2000% means 20 times greater or to multiply the known Live-Load (LL) by a factor of 20.)"
Mr. Bolwyn invited intelligent comment, so if you still have any questions or objections, write to him to him and see what he says. One word of advice: Leave out all the ad hominem stuff like "You and your fellow clowns are a bunch of morons". Ironically, it infers (fairly or otherwise) far more about the degree of intelligence of the attacker than the one being attacked. You might consider using a spell-checker, too.
Peace.
Keep squeeking. Anything to keep your position afloat.
Boldwyn is unequivical in his definitions of his quantities DL_110 and LL_110. I already spelled out where he is wrong in succint detail, quoting Boldwyn definitions verbatim. Despite it kindergarten basicallity it seems to have escaped you. Here follows an outline, just in case you got confused by the details.
The first he defines as a tower's weight without the furniture, the second he defines to be a tower's weight with the furniture. Anyone with basic intellectual skills will see that the second quantity equals the first plus the weight of the furniture. Not so Boldwyn. He claims the second equals the first TIMES Hamberger's aleged safety factor. That's just gibberish. Gibberish that becomes even worse when he MULTIPLIES two safety factors.
You can kick and scream, twist and turn whatever you like, that doesn't make Boldwyn right. He is wrong. A fact you seem to get a grasp of when you start talking of maximum permissable loads. Boldwyn doesn't. He talks about weights.
It is nice to note you make a start at correcting Boldwyn. At least you seem to have a beginning of a grasp of how such an analysis should be done. Now Carl, how much weight was each floor capable of supporting without structural failure (iow, what was the safety factor for each floor). How was that safety factor affected by the structural damage caused by the airliners impact and subsequent fires. And by how much was the maximum permissable load by each floor exceeded by being hit by ~ 100000 tonnes of skycraper (dynamic load, so absent from Boldwyn's "careful and scientific" analisys) that is racing towards the earth?
I'll happily leave in the personal qualifications, my friend. They are fairly accurate. Like many before me I have concluded that you 9/11 Truthers are a bunch of idiots, ranging from the confused to clueless imbeciles, alien to the concepts of fact and logic. That you resolve the cognitive dissonance induced by these qualifications by questioning the intelligence of your opponent rather that the validity of your own position and reasoning is precisely your conspiracy nut mind at work.
Peter, once again, here are the relevant definitions:
DL_110 = Dead-Load weight of one WTC Tower of 110 Floors
= Weight of one Unoccupied & Unfurnished Tower
LL_110 = Live-Load weight of one WTC Tower of 110 Floors
= Weight of one Fully-Occupied & Furnished Tower
= 5*(DL110)
The 5 multiplier is based on this comment: “One WTC 110-Story Tower could support the Live Load weight of Five(5) 110-Story Dead-Load WTC Towers.”
He uses this multiplier because rather than guess at the weight of the furniture in these half-empty buildings, he chose to use maximum design load, which is clearly a much higher figure than the actual load. If his calculations work with this load (as they do), they’ll clearly work with the lower loads.
Boldwyn quotes WTC Chief Engineer John Skilling as stating, “"Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."
(2000% means 20 times greater or to multiply the known Live-Load (LL) by a factor of 20.)”
Your claim to the contrary, Boldwyn didn’t mention anything about the Safety Factor, which can mean two entirely different things in engineering. Rather, it is something that YOU IMPLIED. At any rate, 5*(DL110) is the maximum permissible Live Load of one of the Twin Towers (which of course would be equal to or greater than the anticipated load of a fully occupied building). The Safety Factor, directly implied by Skillings, is 20, so the actual load on one of the Twin Towers before structural failure ensued would need to be 5*(DL110)*20, or one hundred times the weight of the empty building.
BTW, this is far in excess of the safety factor for a typical high-rise.
Peter, you have confused the Safety Factor with the maximum design load, which is 5*(DL110). When Skillings states “"Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs," he’s not talking about the actual loads at the time of the collapse (which were unknown and essentially unknowable), he’s talking about the maximum anticipated loads for a fully occupied building. This was calculated to be 5 times the loads of the buildings were they empty.
I suggest once again, as a courtesy to Boldwyn, that if you feel he is mistaken, you write him as he requested.
Look pal, anyone with a brain, writing down a, scientific, cough, cough, analysis, MULTIPLYING two safety factors (despite your sqeeking and screaming, that's what they are) should step back for a moment and wonder "where did I go wrong?" Not so Boldwyn.
Define the maximum allowable weight (I'll go with your interpreatation of Boldwyn analysis, here) of the building call it "Live Load", and toss in a safetyfactor that says "the live load can be increased 20 fold." The self defined "Live Laod" being a different physical quantity than the second "live load." Congratulations! Semantic juggelry. Nonsense it is.
As has been noted earlier, you clowns are extrememly critcal toward the "official story", any standard of quality on what you yourself produce is absent.
As I said before, Boldwyn's analysis also fails to take the weakening of the structure due to the earliners impact and subsequent fires into account. Boldwyn also does not consider the dynamic loads excerted on the structure by ~100000 tonnes of skycraper coming down.
Boldwyn is just dead wrong. His "analysis" is crackpot nonsense.
And no thank you, I won't give Boldwyn the privalige of making an arse of himself in a private e-mail exchange. I prefer to expose his nonsense for what it is in full public view.
Peter, I've emailed Mr. Boldwyn to comment on and hopefully clarify what I see as ambiguities in his definitions. To me, that is better than interpreting the definitions, which both of us have engaged in. I'll post his response if and when I receive one.
Peter, Mr. Boldwyn responded with an updated analysis. Unfortunately, it doesn't clarify the meanings of the factors in question (5 and 20), so I'm none the wiser. Consequently, I can't draw any conclusions as to whether he is right or wrong. Having said that, I feel it's extremely unlikely that this retired physics and chemistry instructor would just holus-bolus multiply two safety factors together, as you suggest.
Nice article, shame the 'evidence' is close-up photos that could have been taken anywhere.
Some of your pics are dubious.
Why did Bush not move when he was told "America is under attack?" He was sat for 5 mins in that classroom even after the kids had stopped reading to him. WTF? AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK?? BY NUKES?? BY WHAT??? Who cares I'll just sit here for a while. Yeah ok.
B_L_I_N_K_E_R_E_D
9/11 is a cover up. Watch Zeitgeist and open your eyes. An idiot could see it was planned.
There is even a video of the owner of the trade towers, saying the decision was made to "pull it" a demolition term. A controlled demolition takes weeks to plan, before you can "pull it." Number 7 was a controlled demolition. Check this out. It is convincing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5714975155113419363
The "pull it" nonsense has been debunked a gazillion of times.
Quote out of context, single out a word, stretch and bend it meaning into what you want it to mean, et voila, proof!
The same goes for much the "proof" in this video. Firefighters says bomb goes of, firefighters use "boom boom boom" to describe collapse sounds, presto! proof!
Anything to deceive yourselfs.
Peter has accused "truthers" of quoting "pull it" out of context, after um, quoting "pull it" out of context. Remarkable! In fact, it is "truthers" who have publicized the video of the quote, IN CONTEXT. Here's a transcript:
Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know that we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."
My interpretation of Silverstein's reasoning behind his extremely odd statement (why on earth didn't the brain-dead interviewer seek a clarification?) is that in light of the fact that the CD of Building 7 had "unfortunately" been captured on video, he had to justify it, so he provided the best explanation he could come up with. In my opinion, Building 7, which likely housed highly incriminating, and highly sought after financial data (the reasons for this belief are widely available on the web), was supposed to have been destroyed by a plane, perhaps Flight 77, perhaps some other flight that wasn't able to be hijacked. When Building 7 wasn't struck, "Lucky Larry", upon seeing that the building was on fire, used the fire as a pretext to complete his plan. The building was pre-rigged to explode, which would be very difficult to keep under wraps after the fire, etc. unless he could destroy it. He knew the US media well enough to know that they wouldn't probe too deeply, and that they would ridicule those that did, and of course that's exactly what happened. Besiders, he had little choice, once Plan "A" failed.
Is this indeed what happened? I have no idea. But at least it's plausible, which is more than can reasonably be said for the ridiculous assertions that a 47 story building would spontaneously pancake in on itself in 6 seconds with all the hallmarks of a CD, because of a fire and minor damage on ONE SIDE of the building.
BTW, Martin assured me some time ago, apparently relying on his psychic powers, that NIST would provide a definitive explanation for the remarkable collapse of Building 7. Well, Martin, NIST has finally, belatedly, released its report, and as I suspected, it's being poked full of holes by independent engineers, and deservedly so--It's a joke. So what led you to be so sure that the NIST report would lay the matter to rest before it had even been released? I thought the purpose of this blog was to teach us rubes how to think scientifically. I mean, even if the just-released NIST report had indeed laid the matter to rest, you simply had no way of knowing that before its release, did you? Could it be that you believe in the essentials of the official conspiracy theory as a matter of blind faith?
What I find funny is the 9/11 truthers are never reasonable people. At most they're anonymous and and best they harass those who don't believe the way they do and even belittle them. I mean is that the way reasonable people convince other people of their point? If you truthers really want to convince us, stop hiding behind your anonymity and stop belittling us. This isn't want reasonable people do, reasonable people try to help their fellow humans.
Convince us with real proof, we can handle it, us poor sheeple. *rolls his eyes*
Anonymous, you say, "If you truthers really want to convince us, stop hiding behind your anonymity..."
Ever look up the word "hypocrisy"? Just asking.
I have found only one instance in the entire NCSTAR report where the NIST says the distribution of weight (and therefore mass) is important to analyzing the event. The kinetic energy of the plane hitting the south tower did structural damage and shook the building. So you cannot figure out how much did damage without determining how much energy went into shaking the tower. But to do that you must know the distribution of mass.
{{{ 2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations
Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact. }}}
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74
But that distribution of mass is also relevant to analyzing the collapse and whether it was possible in less than 18 seconds.
But this all relates to science education in the United States and what has been going on with the nitwits in our engineering schools for the last SEVEN YEARS. When have they demanded accurate distribution of mass data? How could they produce competent engineers without knowing the relevance of that information?
psik
911 WTC Tower Total Collapse: Scientific Proof of Impossibility
Conclusive 911 Scientific-Proof, with Physics Textbook Evidence and Prominent WTC-911-Associated References,
establishing the Impossibile Occurance of the Total-Collapse of both WTC Towers, from Plane-Crashes and Fires, alone.
Some definitions from the Physics of Matter in Free-Fall Collision and Matter resisting Free-Fall Collision:
{Weight = mg} or F = ma = mg (is Newton's 2nd Law of Motion), where m = mass , g = 9.8 (m/s*s), where g = (the earth's natural acceleration downwards due to it's Gravitational Attraction Force for all objects composed of Matter. Weight is Force and is described in usits of Pounds or Newtons, where (1 Lb = 4 N).
Work = Energy = Force * height = F*h = mgh = .5 mv*v (in Foot-Pounds or Newton-meters or Joules)
Isaac Newton's 3rd Law of Motion scientifically establishes that: For Every Action (= Falling Collision Force),
there always occurs, without fail, an Equal and opposite Reaction (= Upward Supporting Resistive Force or Strength Force)
So what we have here is a battle of oppositely directed Forces. We need to determine which of the directed Forces is greater
and by how much greater that greater Force is in terms of multiples of the weaker of the two oppositely directed Forces.
Definitions: (DL, LL, & CL are all in Force units of Pounds or Newtons), {Wt. = mg})or F = ma (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion)
DL = Dead-Load
LL = Live-Load
CL = Collapse-Load
110 = 110 Floor-Steel-Block (rigid)
95 = 95 Floor-Steel-Block (rigid)
15 = 15 Floor-Steel Block (rigid)
_______________________________________
More Definitions:
to be used in determining the Force Weights of various sizes of WTC Steel Blocks and which of the opposing Forces is greater and by how much greater.
DL_110 = Dead-Load weight of one WTC Tower of 110 Floors
= Weight of one Unoccupied & Unfurnished Tower
_________________________________________________
Mr. Ronald Hamberger, a 911-Commission Report Scientist advised that, "before being damaged, the Towers could support
5 times their own weights".
This statement was made on Dec. 3, 2006 at The Center For Inquiry West, during his Presentation there. Whar Mr. Hamberger was reporting was the Live Load for one WTC Tower. One WTC 110-Story Tower could support the Live Load weight of Five(5) 110-Story Dead-Load WTC Towers.
_________________________________________________
LL_110 = Live-Load weight of one WTC Tower of 110 Floors
= Weight of one Fully-Occupied & Furnished Tower
= 5*(DL110)
_________________________________________________
WTC Chief Engineer, John Skilling, as reported in Engineering News Record, April 2, 1964:
"Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."
(2000% means 20 times greater or to multiply the known Live-Load (LL) by a factor of 20.)
__________________________________________________
CL110 = Collapse Load of one WTC of 110 Floors
= 20*(LL_110) = 20*(5*(DL_110)
= 100*DL110 (you can do Vertical Stacking of 100 WTCs which may induce Collapse
according to Mr. Hamberger's and Mr. Skilling's stated factorial numbers, 5 & 20).
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
More Definitions:
DL_15 = (Dead Load weight of one Upper 15-Floor-Block of a WTC Tower)
= 1 Force Unit (FU) , in Newtons or Pounds
= the Elemental Force Unit used in all these calculations and in the Final Answers below.
DL_95 = (Dead Load weight of one Lower 95-Floor-Block of a WTC Tower)
= (DL_95/DL_15)*(DL_15) = (95/15))*(DL_15)
= 6.33*(DL_15) , (in words, there are 6.33 15-Floor-Dead-Load-Blocks in one 95-Floor-Dead-Load-Block)
LL_95 = 5*(DL_95) = 5*(6.33*(DL_15)) = 30.65(DL_15)
= 31(1 FU) , (giving 31 Force Units of upward Anti-Collapse Force, also termed Supportive Force)
= 31(FU)
CL_95 = 20*LL_95 = (20)*(5)*(6.33*(DL*15))
= 633 DL_15
= 633 FU (of anti-collapse Force of Resistance or Collapse-Load, In Force Units, that are in multiples of one 15-Floor-Block)
(therefore, stacking 633 15-Floor-Blocks on top of the 95-Floor-Steel-Block may induce Collapse)
Conclusions:
___________
(633 FU UP):(1FU DOWN) = (633 Anti-Collapse Force Units Up):(1 Gravity Weight Force Unit down)
These are Linear Vector Force Units. Applying Linear Vector Addition Mathematics gives the following Answers
to which of the opposing Forces, Upwards or Downwards, is greater and by how much greater, and letting us know if Collapse can occur or not occur.
633 Up - 1 Down = 632 (Resultant Up Anti-Collapse Force Units remaining,
resulting in the impossibility of Collapse of either WTC due to Plane Crashes and Jet Fuel Fires.)
Further Conclusions:
____________________
The Structural Steel at the top of the WTC was only about (1/4) inch thick. Compare that to Steel at the
bottom level Floors of the WTC as being reported at 4 inches thick.
This means that the more truthful value for CL_95, Collapse Load of the 95-Floor-Block will be magnitudes or multiples greater than (633 *DL_95),
perhaps a mathematical-multiple of 10 or even much more, giving:
CL_95 (revised) = 10*(633*DL_15) = 6,330 DL_15
= 6,330 Vector Anti-Collapse Force Units (FU) upward, as opposed to one Vector weight Force Unit down, (DL_15).
According to publicly available internet videos of the WTCs on 911 and accoring to NIST:
The 15-Floor-Steel-Block had a time of Free Fall through Air = 9.2 Seconds,
& The 15-Floor-Block had a time of Free-Fall through a
95-Floor-Steel-Block = 10.3 Seconds.
(a difference of only about a second more of time through the highly collapse-resistant, high-propertied Steel.)
My case for the Absurd Possibility of Collapse of either WTC Tower rests with the Public as Jury.
Your intelligent response to this research and conclusions is welcome.
If you have at least a Middle School understanding of Physics, you should be able to follow my arguments.
With your understanding of this Presentation, your response is welcome.
I will be posting additional information on the Energy that would be required to bring the WTC Towers down,
and what the conditions for that would be. I will be making all this information and much more available of
my personal web site in the near future. I am presently working on the creation of that site now.
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
August 30,2008
LOL see we found a seatbelt that means there must have been a plane crash here. LMFAO what an idiot the OP is. FORGET SEATBELTS WHERE IS THE FUSELAGE DUMBASS!??!!?
TO ALL YOU MINDLESS NIT WITS!!!! STOP YAMMERING ABOUT ALL THAT SHIT UNLESS YOU ARE GONA DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT CUS IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE ARGUING ABOUT BULLSHIT. Whos Right Whos WRONG!!!! GO GET SOME FACTS OTHERWISE STOP DEALING WITH THE PAST AND LOOK TO THE FUTURE!!!! AND THINK: "WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR A BETTER TOMORROW!"
Part of any plan of what to do for a better tomorrow entails a thorough recognition of our past. The Towers did not collapse. There is something wrong with a nation that has so easily, and readily, bought in to such an enormous hoax that the future (tomorrow) is not going to be better but worse. Hitler was crazy, but he was right in this case.
The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.
-- Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (1925)
Thank the heavens nothing else like 9/11 has happened again, yet.
The US Government and the Mass Media are Masters of Deception.
The populace of the USA are Masters of Gullibility.
This is the perfect combination needed for total mental & psychological manipulation and brain washing.
Also it would help to learn some, just some, elementary Physics. Less than a fraction of 1% of the American population can understand and apply basic Middle School physics to a real world situation or catastrophe.(Simple Linear Vector Forces, the 3 Laws of Motion of Newton, and simple Addition, Subtraction, Division, & Multiplication)
Even a lot of Scientists have been fooled, deceived, duped, made totally gullible to thier lack of understanding of the demolishments of the Twin Towers and WTC 7
Please my fellow Americans, it is still not too late to learn some basic Physics. Read my article above on why the WTC Towers could not have possibly collapled from exploding plane crashes and extremely widespread and intense fires.
Also email me and I will send you my MS Word document that fully explains this impossibility. cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
CL(95) = 20*5*6.33*DL(15) = 633*DL(15)
This equation was derived by Chuck Boldwyn based on the quotes of John Skilling & Ronald Hamburger using thier published or announced anti-collapse support factors of 20 and 5.
Chuck Boldwyn
Retired Physics & Chemistry Instructor
cboldwyn@bellsouth.net
composed: Nov 16, 2008
Let us see.. conspiracy nuts reject anything not consistent with the party line, reason, logic, science being completely wasted on them, and accept and spread anything that even remotely is consistent with their beliefs as if it where the gospel.
Funny, from where I am sitting the Big Lie, the brainwashing of the easily deceived masses is taking place on the side of the "Truthers," the easily deceived masses they themselves are. Willing victims of their own deceit.
great post, glad not everyone is buying into the bullshit.
The following article details what's really going on:
The 9/11 Truth Movement,
Free Energy Suppression
and the Global Elite’s Agenda
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=...
Having just read through the page I am staggered at the concentration on and attention to detail regarding the events 9/11. I am not a conspiracy theorist, and I can't help but think that people are failing to see the wood for the trees.
Assuming for a moment (and it may be a bigger ask for some than others) that the U.S government wanted to, for whatever reason, create an incident on home soil that would give them the support of the people in the invasion of, well, wherever they like really.
In those circumstances the most important thing for anyone taking part in such a 'conspiracy' would be plausible deniability (especially in the case of politicians and other wealthy/politically powerful individuals).
So, you could go to the World Trade Center in New York, have your intelligence services/military personnel rig the whole lot with explosives, then head off to the airport, rig four aeroplanes with remote control guidance systems(all without anyone noticing), then back to the pentagon for a cup of coffee and a around of 'place the c4'.
Or, you could use the intelligence on and contacts in an organisation that your CIA funded and equipped to fight the Russians. Make sure they get the idea, then pass funding, intelligence, and help in various forms to them covertly, letting them do most of the work themselves and eventually you've got your holiday to Afghanistan with the boys.
What this gives you is a highly deniable plot, and exactly what you wanted.
To address the issue of the demolition more directly; It's a complete irrelevance whether the towers drop or not, yes it is marginally beneficial to have a national landmark completely destroyed but even having the aeroplanes hijacked and flown into the towers is an attack by a foreign (important in this case) enemy on sovereign territory.
And that's without the attacks on the Pentagon and the one that crashed.
So perhaps the the conspiracy (if there is one) lies elsewhere and the 'truthers' are looking far too closely at the details to see the bigger picture.
You either a stupid or involved in conspiracy... Give me one reason, why the agents immediately collected the films recorded around the pentagon? If your answer is " Security", first of all everybody laughs at this, and second what kind of security is this?
BBC news broadcast announced that the WTC7 collapsed 26 mins earlier. Do you have something about this that we wouldn't like? It is scientificly impossible that twin towers could collapse from a jet fuel fire. Do u have something for that?
Oh...How about the molten metal found in the debris? Was it the pre-vaporised jet engines? Get a life...
Ha-ha, Americans. I'm pretty sure at least 10% of you have a negative IQ.
That comment was aimed at the conspiracy theorists, not the author of this article, by the way.
That's alright - I'm British :)
that means your gay
Question.
It seems that there are a lot of people throwing the term Conspiracy Theorist to ANYONE who asks questions whether they present an actual theory that two or more parties planned a crime or not as though it's supposed to be an insult.
So my question is this. Am I to take it that only citizens of the United States are capable of conspiring to commit wrongdoing (i.e. Conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit fraud) or is anyone capable of conspiring whether in government or not?
One more thing while I'm asking questions (a basic funamental right I still enjoy) that supposed "seat belt"...when was the last time anyone entered a plane where you had to thread the belt through the buckle and then shut it over the belt? As far as I remember, seatbelts on planes locked as seat belts in cars did. The last time I saw a buckle mechanism like the one featured in the photo was on an 18-wheeled semi truck, hauling large loads of lumber.
actually ive flown on two planes with seatbelts like that lol
Lol, sorry, I have to stop you on the buckle... have you ever been on a flight before? I can't think of a single plane I've ever been on that doesn't have a buckle seat-belt like that, and I fly a lot.
Of course, if you actually really wanted to know "the truth", you'd have done some googling, and found out for certain what seat-belts on modern planes look like - generally like: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/Skyblade04/BCA021.jpg. If you don't think that's representative, feel free to find some other examples.
And that's the difference between a conspiracy theorist, and someone who asks questions. If you were really wanted to just "ask a question", then you would have put the above into Google and had your answer in about sixty seconds. But you didn't, you just wanted to throw some innuendo and disinformation around.
And that's what this is - disinformation. You get on your high horse about wanting to uncover the truth, but you've come on to this comment thread and attempted to spread a piece of complete disinformation to readers. That makes *you* as much of a handicap to finding out the truth as any supposed conspiracy theorist.
Somehow though, I suspect the irony is lost on you.
i would think that the purpose of asking questions is for a debate instead of insulting him and saying hes passing out missinformation why dont you just put him on the right track with your google results asking questions is a good way to learn anything about life.
"Asking questions" is not what you and I would take it to mean.
Asking questions = "Be dismissive of the official story at all costs and beyond the point of not accepting anything that supports the official story"
It is not in his interest to google to find answers, it is in his interest is to insist on the Truth.
"truth", likewise, is defined differently from what you and I would take it to mean.
i-am-bored strikes again
HAHA GO i-am-bored.com!!!!
IAB FTW
Not any more - they only took me down because I was unprepared. I've blocked IAB's referrals, and if lots of people come through that I'll just redirect you all to Google again ;)
I am not an American. I am Australian. I have no invested interest in terrorists attacking America, or government conspiracies. But what that gives me, is a relatively unbiased perspective. There are sooo many things, the science, the spectacle, hell even the utter convenience that makes most non-American people around the world sit up and say - whoa, there is something seriously fishy going on here... But with all the debatable metal-stress / physics / freefall speed arguments, the one thing I simply cannot forget is WTC 7. Sure, your pictures show it being hit by the dust and falling debris of the twin towers, but that goes for all the other buildings in that picture too, and did they suddenly collapse at 5pm on Sept 11? No. Also why is the collapse of WTC 7 never shown, NEVER shown on TV? We saw the twin towers collapse in Australia hundreds of times, but not ONCE, not even ONCE, was the collapse of WTC 7 released to the public? We get a constant barrage of the twin towers falling from hundreds of angles, and yet another important building falls on the same day from the same cause and `nothing`? Most people have no idea it even happened? Why? Was it less important? I understand it was a base for the mayor and contained thousands of irreplaceable military and corporate records?
- And why did the mayor in a press interview on Sept 11 say `we have decided to pull building 7`? Fair enough he corrected himself later, meaning they decided to `pull out` the firefighters, but even if that is what he meant and NOT the `demolition-term` you still have WTC with a few fires and EXTERIOR damage from the twin towers, the fire-fighters give it up for lost, they pull out AND THEN it conveniently collapses veritcally straight down into its own footprint. Or had they decided the building was lost, rigged it with explosives and demolished it in a blink of an eye in a way that normally takes professionals months to arrange? My, wasn`t that lucky?
- Whilst 50,000 people dead is a tragedy, lets face it, it could have been easily alot worse. If I were a terrorist wanting to hurt america, I`d hijack a plane and send it into the nearby nuclear reactor. OR, if I soo desired the airborne spectacle, I would wait until at least 11pm when the building isn`t almost completely devoid of people?!?!
Convenience, contrivance, CONVENIENCE! The real answer to what happened in 9-11 is still hidden, but really, the world thinks that American`s just consider it much easier to blame someone else. Don`t be a victim. Question what you see. Think about who benefits. It is the only way to save yourselves.
There is something missing, and it is so obvious, that it can
not be seen by an intelligent being. Only by an idiot like me.
Building 7 was a target; Flight 93 was a missile.
The missile never made it to the target.....The target fell
anyway...
The final seconds of the cockpit voice recorder on flight 93
were missing...
What did the heros on flight 93 realize when they crashed
through the cockpit doors?
American citizens owe it to the world to find out the truth
about 911....Re open the investigation......Please...
so, you happen to be Australian with an invested interest in America, eh? You sound more like an American with an extreme interest 9-11 conspiracy theories. Here's a conspiracy: I bet you are not Australian at all! stop lying!!!!
p.s. i-a-b rulez!!!
And who benefited most from 9/11? The Truthers! If it hadn't been for 9/11, the Truthers would all be wanking quietly somewhere, babbling about the Illuminati and treated as the denialist bastards they are.
"This page was temporarily suspended due to bandwidth issues caused by an insane number of people trying to come here from I-am-bored.com. Sorry, for the trouble, but my finger is still on the kill switch if I get another crazy surge..."
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=31707
Boo yah, bitches
Here's what I love.
Conspiracy theorists pretending like they've been in the building demolition business for 40 years, are somehow, magically, instant experts on the matters of how a building is taken down by explosives. 90% of the nut-jobs out there somehow want me to NOT "BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT!!!" *gasp!*, but instead, believe their sorry ass since they seem to know everything about an event that a.) they likely never saw occur in person, and b.) they are basing all their information on a couple of asinine-looking websites that claim it couldn't have happened the way it did.
Do you guys go to school to be this retarded?
Of course there's going to be discrepancies in the investigations for such a large event between multiple agencies. Some may even completely disagree how something happened.
But one thing I know - as an Architect, I have spoken (and deal with on a daily basis) SEVERAL structural engineers who do not dispute how those buildings collapsed.
Also, are you crackheads pretending like those phone conversations we heard on Flight 93 were falsified?
Oh well. I suppose there will always be people out there to suggest nothing could possibly happen in the most logical way possible. They think the Holocaust was made up, and the Tsunami was exaggerated. Hell, they probably think Hurricane Katrina was developed by the US Military, specifically designed to wreak havoc on the US. For the most part, I couldn't care less about the crackpots for 9/11 - I just wish they would stop saying, "don't listen to the government - do your own research."
You know what? I DON'T LISTEN TO THE GOVERNMENT. I'VE DONE MY RESEARCH. Know what I've learned? YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS.
I am sick and tired of being tarred as a "conspiracy theorist" or "nut" or "truther" simply because I believe the laws of physics. For those who may not recall, these include the following:
(1) In any reaction, energy input must exactly equal energy output. [Then how could the combination of airliner impacts, limited office fires, and gravity cause the catastrophic and total collapse of (mostly undamaged) steel frame skyscrapers--an event requiring at least 10x the amount of energy contained in the (visible) energy inputs?]
(2) Without collateral energy, hot things get cooler, not vice versa--and they can never heat a non-flammable neighboring object to a higher temperature than themselves. [Then how could instantly exploding jet fuel and residual office fires melt down huge steel columns, leaving pools of molten steel, after first cooling down to mostly smoke?]
(3) Falling objects that encounter resistance fall more slowly than falling objects that do not. [Then how could the top fifth of a steel frame building simultaneously disintegrate and pass right through the lower four fifths at near freefall rate, without encountering any resistance?]
(4) Jet airplanes with a wide wingspan do not pass through oval holes. [Then how come an oval hole--with no visible airliner debris--was left in the Pentagon, with no wing impact marks at all on the columns to the left and right of it?]
As to what actually happened or who masterminded the events of that horrible day, I haven't a clue. But I know for a fact that the official story is a giant hoax perpetrated on a gullible American public.
Sick of being called a nut?
Reread Rich's post. Now, slowly start realizing that through the remainder of your post in reallity you said "I am one too."
Would it be possible for you to restore the post now? I feel immeasurably disappointed to come here find the original post unavailable.
How Could You people be fighting over this?!?!
While people have been killed and people are dying all over the world You all focus on the past
Well It's OVER
Focus on what is happening now
Who cares if it was fake or real?
IT'S OVER!
While you idiots fight millions of people die, so WHY NOT FOCUS ON THEM?!?
Dumb ass
You're so stupid. MANY people here will agree with my why what you just said was ignorant. You only think on one level obviously. But I don't expect you to understand what i mean, but back me up people if you do.
no ones gonna read this far but if u do!
Have you all forgotten?
We're so torn by war that we don't bother to look at the families whove lost loved ones?
HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE!
So concerned with being right you don't even dare to care for those who need it most. Is this what americas come to?
I may be just a teenager but I sure as hell ain't gonna be so stuckup and act like a dick when i could help someone.
Fuck all you people.
You all are careless stuck up assholes.
Thnx
Dicks
George Bush hates the people who worked at the WTC.
Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? You have to be joking, because I didn't realize anyone could say something so stupid without any basis in fact. Why can't everyone just embrace the fact that there was no conspiracy? Stop looking for something that isn't there.
I have just 1 point...
To begin with may everyone who died on that tragic day rest in peace.
2 planes did hit the towers, but where are the bodies?
All that was found was the passport of 1 of the "terrorists".
The other 5/6 "terrorists" which wer named, had already been dead for up to 3/4 years, they wer random names picked off a list where the US government thought they would never be noticed...
US government sucks, people of the US....get a life, follow your own dream, don't let your presidents run your life. kill the jews, free palestine.
so ignorant dude. Dont pick information of a conspiracist website and try to use in here as an "actual arguement".
And I dont really think by that time, those bodies would be findable anyway
"2 planes did hit the towers, but where are the bodies?"
The bodies were found and not left out, of course. Why would corpses be left sitting around?
"All that was found was the passport of 1 of the "terrorists"."
The others could have easily burned. Heck, I doubt most of your info is backed up anyway.
"The other 5/6 "terrorists" which wer named, had already been dead for up to 3/4 years, they wer random names picked off a list where the US government thought they would never be noticed..."
I'd like to see this "list." Try to back up your obviously made-up information
"US government sucks,"
Wrong, idiot.
"people of the US....get a life,"
So, no person in the U.S.A. has a life. WRONG. (That's just you.)
"follow your own dream,"
O.K., that's fine.
"don't let your presidents run your life."
The president doesn't run people's lives.
"kill the jews,"
Racist Bastard
"free palestine."
That's being worked on right now.
In all, this is just a stupid conspiracy theorist/ troll/ KKK member who can't back up his story and doesn't understand anything about the government.
PWNT.
Wow, you really followed your post with "PWNT"... even if you made any valid points, most people probably disregarded what you said once they read PWNT... now that's sad.
Wow, you really followed your post with "PWNT"... even if you made any valid points, most people probably disregarded what you said once they read PWNT... now that's sad.
Here are a few other points to consider, George
1. All of the supposed "Jews" who were "returned" to Israel were never descendant from any of the original Hebrew tribes...they were converts from the steppes of Russia.
2. The Field in Somerset, The World Trade Center Complex...both of these have been confirmed to have been identified as "crime scenes." Federal Law mandates that NOTHING be removed from any crime scene. Why then were there so many massive "cleanup efforts" before forensic analysts could go in to determine exactly what brought down those buildings?
3. Floors may sag and, yes, trusses may even break causing the "Pancake Effect" but the thing that the ever-dwindling minority most certainly do not want to address and never will is the fact that the core support columns would still stand. The ONLY way for a building to collapse upon itself is for those support columns to be weakened significantly or cut. Fire does not do this but explosives do
4. The most laughable aspect is that several of the so-called "Saudi Terrorists" turned up alive, the FBI has gone on record as stating that they do not have evidence linking Osama bin Laden OR Al Qaeda to the event.
Ok, well if all that's true and those were crime scenes that day, then there had to be a plan to get rid of the evidence. This plan would have to be done by two or more people (i.e. a conspiracy to commit a major Federal Felony) and complicit parties to actually carry out the deed of the evidence tampering.
Does that still sound "nuts" or would we like to keep saying Captain Caveman on dialysis still did it while we don't bother looking for him?
So, what you're saying is that one piece of what you say is landing gear, a piece of a seatbelt, a big puff of black smoke in the air...this just proves us wrong.
Right, ok, I got ya.
In that case, I would like to know if you also believe in a sudden spike in clairvoyant activity, laws of physics taking a day off and furthermore laws of entropy taking a backseat to fantasy all in the same day?
The dissembling of your argument was already present when you called us all "nuts" as was apparent in your title. Fact is, you have made a few points that I'm willing to look at but I would rather debate them with a brick wall because, as usual, the only thing you will have left when I'm finished is the weak resort to ad hominem attack.
I wonder one other thing. Are you actually willing to simply write off Military, Police, Fire, Senators, Physicists, and the like as nuts?
When you show some more proficiency in a truly effective argument perhaps more of us will listen. Until then...
lol this is typical. You targeted the few pictures that could be argued against and trashed the possibility of even considering the others. You made a good arguement at making yourself sound more informed than you are. Like I said to another guy who said what you said: stop taking information off a conspiracist website and expecting to use it in here and think people smarter than you won't notice.
You were an idiot about this. Take your own "arguement" or "debate" ""advice"", and see how it works for you.
"...that could be argued against..."
and the other pristinely inarguable pictures trump these? why on earth is it necessary to argue with every individual piece of the entire original posting? it isn't, actually. but thank you for your emotional outburst.
We all know that 9-11 happened, we aren't saying that it didn't what most Americans are saying is why no Bin Laden, and why did we stop fighting the threat in Afghanistan, and go into Iraq where there was no threat, Hussein hate Bin Laden. These are the questions that cause conspiracy buffs to believe 9-11 was planned, these pictures don't show anything...except our government as forgotten 9-11 except to use it as an election platform and a tool of fear on the masses.
Oh for god's sake!
The Towers were hit by planes, causing many hundreds of people to die. If they were then demolished by controlled detonation, before the towers were properly cleared of people then so be it and the hijackers and the US government were BOTH EQUALLY AS CULPABLE
Conspiracy theorists will look for ANYTHING contrary to whatever ANY government state. And ALL governments will lie and use truely evil acts that they MAY not have engineered initially to their own ends.
While the war on terror may have no end in sight there is also NO END TO THE WAR BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
Neither side will ever be accept that the other side may hold even a modicum of "truth" to their version of events. Gosh, what does that remind anyone of? (I'll give you a hint - think about the phrase "one true god" and the two sides who both believe they have the only one - and before you say it I'm anglican, read into that what you will.)
While you all rage and rant Saddam Husein is happily sleeping with the devil in hell...
The best conspiracy of all is there was no conspiracy. The various reports of NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Committee are so full of holes it just plain absurd. Yes there is mass amounts of "junk" on both sides of this issue, however, those who buy the official story are beyond any dought either lazy shills, government plants or "patriotic god fearing fox news watching fools".
As intriguing as it is, I doubt that its a conspiracy.
2 photos are mislabled, that is not WTC 7 burning it is WTC 6, 7 is the big black (overly reinforced) building to the right.
Was confirmed that it was not a sagging floor, it was drop cieling frame work. The floors wouldve come loose at that degree of an melting arc and pancacked.
well, thats according to NIST's bullshit pancake theory.
Do your own research people, do not believe what these government tools are bred to repeat.
This WAR ON TERROR wich will never end is extremely profitable for the bush admin.
wow, this debate still rages on eternally, and is truly one of the nastiest debates I've ever seen, with both sides fully convinced that the opposing side is either blind or retarded.
I was on the fence for a good long time, carefully weighing both points of view. I'm still somewhat in the middle, not seeing sufficient evidence to shift the blame. But at the same time, I feel the entire issue could use a thorough re-investigation, as I was not satisfied with the 'official story', especially after learning a few key things about and from the NIST panel that indicated perhaps not the most objective analysis.
Anyway, bottom line, I'd vote for a thorough re-investigation. Which would hopefully either put boards like this to rest, or uncover the biggest scandal ever.
hello my name is thomas naylo
A thorough, unbiased investigation is all we "conspiracy nuts" are asking for, shawn. But I'm puzzled. If you were "on the fence" to begin with, then you weren't blaming ANYBODY, because you wouldn't know WHO to blame, yet you claim to not see "sufficient evidence to SHIFT the blame". Hmm. Methinks you may have been on the fence, but you were leaning pretty far towards the official story, weren't you? If I read you right, you're saying that you're sitting more upright now, but you're still not quite prepared to consider government involvement in 9/11. Perhaps it's not yet quite time to put boards like this to rest, after all! But once again, I do agree with you that a proper investigation is desperately needed.
Of course there was a conspiracy! The moment something momentus like this happens the entire US government mechanism defaults immediately to 'deny everything' mode. The US government previously worked with the mujahedeen against the Russians and so were inadvertantly involved in all subsequent 'al Qaida' actions and obviously didn't want this to come out from the start.
This is not really surprising when you think about it, the US gov in cahoots with someone against the Russians in the 80's, big deal. That doesn't put GWB on the end of a remote controlled drone airplane against his own country 20 years later. Politics makes strange bedfellows and bin Laden senior is up to his arse in world government building projects, he's a builder of mega-projects!
So bin Laden's got connections to US government, big wowzers, who hasn't? Typically the conspiracy theorists jump all over this to add weight to their own-brand simple-world utopian political anti-beliefs and the simple-minded follow them happily. It's no biggy, they only play in the periphery of world government anyway, marginalised by their attraction to being whacky as a form of protest against the 'ordinary'..which is their true driver..ie for their parents (and by proxy, the entire world) to notice them and give in to them when they throw a tantrum.
OBL in the meantime has realised a dream that probably most of us have, if we were honest..to be a world-wide supervillain and hold the men on Cloudbase 9 to ransom with our secret city-destroying super weapon (which turns out to be just a couple of men with a sneaky plan). Support then rolls in from disaffected pakistani teens around the world. He's the anti-hero for the western-raised immigrant teen youth, the rebel with a cause whose politics and grim future vision are overlooked in favour of his stylish wardrobe, scratch-video screen presence and David-vs-Goliath attitude.
George Bush, the grey-suited, god-fearing draught-dodging Daddy's boy fits perfectly into the role of western empire-building/hereditary ruler/illuminati parent-figure and the rest is history..in as much as no-one knows the one true story because there are a million different perspectives and most of them are true.
Yeah the truth is fractal. The closer you look at any small part of it, it gets more complicated. Well what do you expect from a fractal world?
You have a degree in psychology or something, Nick? What rubbish!
You people are a bunch of idiots. When the pictures prove you false, you pick another facet of the "conspiracy" to argue that cannot be proved either way because we do not have the evidence. Instead of twisting the story to fit your predetermined beliefs, look at it with open eyes and the answer is obvious.
Start with a mindless personal attack: that's sue to impress a lot of people. Then make an unfounded allegation like "when the pictures prove you false" (arguments?), then falsely claim that "we do not have the evidence":
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646
The only statement I agree with is your last: "Instead of twisting the story to fit your predetermined beliefs, look at it with open eyes and the answer is obvious."
Indeed...