About 9/11

[Sheep]

cyberbri you are a dumb***, go back to the s**t hole you came from and stay there.

Will I be banned...who knows?

Quite possibly the WORST rebuttal I have EVER SEEN.

I hope you're banned.

SheepStar

 

[Buckle-meister]

Think about it.

Well at least the thread is back on course according to it's title.

Computers.

Computers are the answer.

Cyberbri, There's a good chance we'll never know for sure whether or not the collapse of the twin towers and destruction caused to The Pentagon were conspiracys or not. However, consider that unlike humans, computers are impartial.

Engineers from around the world have independantly analysed the effects of the fire within the towers and have, by and large, come to agreement on the failure mechanism. We're talking here about people far more knowledgable in this most relevant of fields than you or I put together. They have no reason to lie.

Quite possibly the WORST rebuttal I have EVER SEEN. I hope you're banned.

It is a rubbish rebuttal Nibhaz; you'll need to brush up on your insulting skills. I for one hope you are not banned.

 

[nibhaz]

My apologies...

cyberbri

Please accept my apologies for my poor response. I should have known better than to read a controversial thread after I’ve had a few.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Please accept my apologies...

Crawler! Ban 'im!

 

[cyberbri]

Engineers from around the world have independantly analysed the effects of the fire within the towers and have, by and large, come to agreement on the failure mechanism. We're taliking here about people far more knowledgable in this most relevant of fields than you or I put together. They have no reason to lie.

The problem with much of this is, they have taken what they think was the cause, and surmised how that could have produced the end result (well, the failure anyway).

To change examples, let's say there are many witnesses to a man getting shot. He falls over, and later dies. However, he was shot in a part of the body where nobody has ever died due to a gunshot wound. Now, the coroner's job is to determine the cause of death, and that's why we have coroners. But if the coroner only focuses on the gunshot and tries to explain how a normally non-fatal gunshot wound killed the man, I'm sure s/he could come up with an explanation of the chain of events that led to the death. But without looking at other things that could have been the cause, the coroner is not doing his/her job. That job is to uncover the cause of death, no matter what the apparent cause may be. It could have been a heart failure, stroke, there could have been another gunshot wound somewhere, or poison in the system - any number of things.

Now, all of the "official" analysis is based on the assumed cause, the plane crashes and the subsequent fires, rather than any sort of investigation into what caused the structural failure and the subsequent near-freefall speed fall.

After the JFK assassination, everyone bought into the official story of the lone gunmen pulling off super-sniper tactics with the rifle.

I will concede that it is possible, although it has never happened in history before or after that day (look at the Madrid hotel that was consumed with a raging inferno for nearly 24 hours and still stood in 2005), and it happened not once but three times (including a building no one has been able to explain, not even the "official" FEMA story), everything put out to my knowledge has explained how planes crashing and knocking away fire-proofing (even though most of the jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireballs and was burned away very quickly) could have triggered a failure. However it doesn't address the fact that firefighters were saying the fires were small and could be put out.

And to my knowledge no re-creation of the fall of the structures after the failure, ie., how the buildings could have fallen at virtual freefall speeds despite 70 stories of concrete and steel below them, could have been possible.

Let's just assume that there are no doubts about the 3 towers (even though there are many, like I have mentioned, especially with WTC7). That doesn't explain away everything else (Flight 93 plane disappearing, engine being found 1 mile away (as if struck by heat-seaking missile)), the coincidence of Flight 93's AA pilot, how the passengers on the planes were accounted for and yet there were no ME-sounding names on the flight manifests (how'd they get on the planes), how these guys who could barely fly Cessnas managed to overtake the planes and fly them hundreds of miles (after having the transponders go off then on again, with no black-box recordings released for the Pentagon or WTC planes), pull off extreme maneuvers (especially the 270-degree U-turn around the Pentagon to hit the mostly-empty side), how the President was allowed to enter a publicly disclosed location (elementary school 4 miles from an airport) after the first strike, how he lied about seeing the first WTC strike on TV that morning on several occasions (first strike wasn't aired on TV till following day), how he was allowed to sit in the classroom and remain in this public location for 45 minutes until the already-scheduled press conference at the school at 9:30, leaving him a prime target in a public and open location for 45 minutes and putting everyone else there at risk. Where were the air intercepts, which on any other day could intercept a non-responsive airliner in 10-20 minutes? NORAD were doing multiple war games over the oceans and Canada, some of them drills mocking hijacked planes, with the ability to even make non-existent planes appear on radar screens -- even FAA reports had at times 20+ "possible hijacked" planes on the radar screens. Who was put in charge of NORAD and the games? Cheney, earlier that year. And they happened to be re-scheduled to 9/11, even though they normally take place later in the year. They stonewalled any sort of inquiry for a year, finally caved in, and even then Bush would not testify under oath, and had to have Cheney at his side when he testified. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.


We may never know, but I hope you can at least admit that the "official" conspiracy theory isn't 100% bullet-proof. Heck, even much of the JFK-related information is still classified for another 25 years or so.

 

[cyberbri]

cyberbri

Please accept my apologies for my poor response. I should have known better than to read a controversial thread after I’ve had a few.

Blah blah blah.
It was the alcohol talking.
Blah blah blah.

 

[Buckle-meister]

The problem with much of this is, they [engineers] have taken what they think was the cause, and surmised how that could have produced the end result (well, the failure anyway).

If it can be proved that the impact from the plane, damage caused by it and subsequent fires could bring down the buildings, then it's irrelevant whether or not explosives were used; the buildings would've collapsed in any event!

...to my knowledge no re-creation of the fall of the structures after the failure, ie., how the buildings could have fallen at virtual freefall speeds despite 70 stories of concrete and steel below them, could have been possible.

You make it sound like the buildings were solid concrete and steel when this is simply not the case. Tall buildings strive to maximise floor plan area given the enormous cost of their construction. Open plan is the ideal here, with the cores providing the shear strength (as well as shafts for elevators) and perimiter columns flexural strength required by the building. If you could strip away the cladding to a tall building, you'd see just how 'airy' it was. It has to be because the bottom floor has to carry all those floors above it!

Let's just assume that there are no doubts about the 3 towers...That doesn't explain away everything else [i.e. flight 93]

Yes, I'll admit that the events relating to flight 93 seem odd. Must go and take a look at that clip linked to earlier that explains it all away )

We may never know, but I hope you can at least admit that the "official" conspiracy theory isn't 100% bullet-proof.

As to flight 93, sure. As to the twin towers, no, I don't buy it.

 

[cyberbri]

If it can be proved that the impact from the plane, damage caused by it and subsequent fires could bring down the buildings, then it's irrelevant whether or not explosives were used; the buildings would've collapsed in any event!

It's not irrelevant, because that would have to involve even further conspiracy by the terrorists (if the "official" conspiracy theory is to be believed). If it was proved explosives would have been necessary to bring the buildings down in the fashion and speed with which they fell, how in the world is that irrelevant? Van Romero (at first) said there were bombs in the buildings used to bring them down, with the airplanes as a diversion -- before he quickly changed his story to "it was most certainly fire that caused these 100+ story buildings to fall."

Up until now, how has Al Qaeda worked?
Strapping bombs onto suicide bombers.
Putting bombs in trucks and detonating them close to buildings.

But now we have a group of terrorists getting onto planes (without being on the flight manifests, no less) and hijacking them with box cutters and flying them hundreds of miles into buildings.

If there were bombs, I want to know, because how did the bombs get in the buildings and how were they not found (maybe because the bomb-sniffing dogs and other security measures were taken away in the days before the attacks - who was head of the company doing security for the towers at that time (along with United, etc.)? Oh yeah, Marvin...)????

How can you dismiss such a huge potential revelation like bombs pre-placed in the buildings as irrelevant?

You make it sound like the buildings were solid concrete and steel when this is simply not the case. Tall buildings strive to maximise floor plan area given the enormous cost of their construction. Open plan is the ideal here, with the cores providing the shear strength (as well as shafts for elevators) and perimiter columns flexural strength required by the building. If you could strip away the cladding to a tall building, you'd see just how 'airy' it was. It has to be because the bottom floor has to carry all those floors above it!

Yes, exactly. But I would expect steel in lower floors (which was not on fire), along with the thousands of ton of concrete, to provide a little more than a few seconds of resistance. The buildings fell at near-freefall speeds, including the unexplained WTC7. Basically, if you stood on the top of one tower and dropped a tennis ball at the moment the other tower started to fall, the ball would have hit the ground at almost the same exact time as the top floor of the fallen tower.

My point is -- all explanations have explained up until the point of failure. No models or simulations have been produced that simulate and show how it would be possible that the 70 stories of steel and concrete below the points of impact provided barely any resistance at all.

Must go and take a look at that clip linked to earlier that explains it all away

Do you mind re-posting that link/clip for me?
I have a hard time believing that everything can be explained away, all the stuff I did and didn't mention.



BTW, for Flight 93, wouldn't it be irrelevant if it was actually shot down? There were still terrorists, right? That's going by your logic. But if the plane was in fact shot down (look up the "Happy Hooligans" flight squad that is claimed by some as the ones that shot it down), it changes everything we know about the events of that day. So how can bombs in the towers be irrelevant, but Flight 93 being shot down not be?

 

[Buckle-meister]

It's not irrelevant, because...If it was proved explosives would have been necessary to bring the buildings down...

You've missed my point. All I'm saying is that if it can be proved that the damage and subsequent fire from the plane's impact was enough in itself to initiate progressive collapse, then whether or not the towers could've collapsed from explosives becomes irrelevant, though clearly it's very much relevant if there were explosives present as that would beg the question "who put them there?".

...I would expect steel in lower floors (which was not on fire), along with the thousands of ton of concrete, to provide a little more than a few seconds of resistance.

No, you're not understanding the way the structure failed. Forget the bottom floors. Progressive collapse is caused by the failure of a member that then sheds its load onto another member which in turn fails. It's a runaway failure mechanism. Here's a very simple example (using the towers) to highlight this:

Say something (the weight of an aeroplane, fire, or whatever) causes just a single floor to collapse. Instead of the columns unbraced (here out of plane) length being the height between two floors, now it's the height between three. The load under which the columns will buckle is now four times less than it was a moment ago!

Unfortunately our failed floor isn't content to stop there. Not only does the floor it fell on have to carry it's own load, it now has to carry another floor too! In addition, the load from the floor that failed wasn't just s l o w l y applied to the floor beneath, it was applied dynamically; bam! so that this floor in turn now fails.

But wait! back we come to our columns which are now unbraced over the height of four floors! If they haven't already buckled, they're now nine times more likely to than they originally were! And so on and so on. As you can see, the members at the bottom of the towers have little to do with the failure of the building (in this example).

The buildings fell at near-freefall speeds, including the unexplained WTC7. Basically, if you stood on the top of one tower and dropped a tennis ball at the moment the other tower started to fall, the ball would have hit the ground at almost the same exact time as the top floor of the fallen tower.

Yes, I know what freefall is Cyberbri.

...all explanations have explained up until the point of failure. No models or simulations have been produced that simulate and show how it would be possible that the 70 stories of steel and concrete below the points of impact provided barely any resistance at all.

Determining how failure began would be the tricky bit. After that, the rest becomes easy. Consider the example given above.

Do you mind re-posting that link/clip for me?

Refer to post number 54. Just remember; I didn't post it.

 

[cyberbri]

The issue I (and many others) have with the "collapse" (not the failure) is the speed of the collapse. The failure has been theorized, simulated, whatever. But like I said, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no computer simulations, etc. done to see what the fall would have looked like (time) after the failure. To see if 70 stories of the WTC towers should have provided more than a second or two worth of resistance. Potentially, bombs could have helped soften up the structure and make it come down easier. But this was never explored, because only the planes and fire are part of the "official" story.

The question is, why haven't there been any simulations or re-creations of the collapse itself, and not just the leadup to the initial failure? I would like to see how 70 stories of the WTC towers, including the huge cores, basically provided no resistance to the weight on top of them. The only evidence provided that I am aware of is of the failure, and how the chain reaction was likely to occur - nothing addresses the near-freefall speed of the fall. Nothing in the "official" story anyway. Which is why speculation about bombs has come about (along with the countless people saying they heard and/or saw explosions).

 

[sploo]

Sploo, it is pretty amusing to have someone from England lecturing about what other governments are doing.

That being said, it is pretty clear you know nothing about what does or does not go on in our government.

Ok, ignoring yet another immature jibe; given some the references I've posted, but reading your assertion about my lack of knowledge, does that mean you dispute their content?

To put it another way, what I do or do not personally know is pretty irrelevant; the fact is that there's overwhelming evidence (documents, photos, videos, transcripts) detailing criminal government behaviour.

Even members of US governments past and present have admitted to some illegal activities; I remember watching an interview with Kissinger, where he noted how the people of Chile had 'elected the wrong man', and that he couldn't allow that to happen. What did happen was murder, the overthrowing of a legally elected leader, and his replacement with a brutal dictator: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4176

Dismissing this wealth of evidence, by, again, attacking the person bringing the information to your attention, is simply akin to sticking your head in the sand.

Because you're not asking questions of these people, those that engage in criminal behaviour will continue, make more money, and cause more blood to flow.

 

[BMO]

Even members of US governments past and present have admitted to some illegal activities; I remember watching an interview with Kissinger, where he noted how the people of Chile had 'elected the wrong man', and that he couldn't allow that to happen. What did happen was murder, the overthrowing of a legally elected leader, and his replacement with a brutal dictator: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4176

Spoken like a true socialist.
Pinochet replaced a communist thug.Cleaned out the trash and brought it back to a market driven econmy.( which by the way was destroyed by the socialist before he steped in.)
I stand in awe of you Brits though.Pinochet is held in England to stand for trial in Spain, yet many African thug tribal leaders are allowed to go and come as they please.Does it have anything to do with being Anti- Socialist vs. Socialist?
I,m just currious.Using Pinochet as an example of America gone bad is realy puzzling.

 

[Buckle-meister]

I stand in awe of you Brits...

You just know the conversation's deteriorating when someone says "you (insert country here)".

 

[cyberbri]

Refer to post number 54. Just remember; I didn't post it.

Is this what you are referring to?
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

Note there are no engines on the wings, which seemed to have disappeared from the actual site as well that day.

But look at this one, and think:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/image1/09sep02slow.gif

The simulation shows beams, not the outside wall. It shows the wings being torn apart by the beams. However the only major damage to the Pentagon was the hole made by the fuselage. In order to interact with the beams, the wings would have had to break through the wall. As the fuselage hit the wall and entered the building, the something happened to the wings - either they were pulverized into bits on the outside, or should have been knocked off (like the tail fin). So how is this a proper simulation? A proper simulation would simulate what happened to the wings as the plane hit the side of the building, not show the wings magically warping through the walls.


But that doesn't make sense as to what you said:

Must go and take a look at that clip linked to earlier that explains it all away

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, not Flight 93 (which supposedly was overtaken by passengers, even though the plane was nowhere to be found, and the engine was found a mile away from the site).

What exactly are you referring to that "explains everything away"? And what part of everything are you referring to? All the unanswered questions I listed, or just one of the planes?


Back to Flight 77:
I don't doubt that a plane hit the Pentagon. But why did the FBI take away all the tapes from the security cameras of buildings along its flight path and not release anything (except for the few frames of "anonymous" footage taken from a Pentagon security gate camera, IIRC)? IIRC, all the planes had their transponders turned off, then back on. Op NW talks of switching out planes and blowing up painted dummy planes. And once again, since all of the passengers and flight crew of Flight 77 were supposedly recovered, along with the 4 terrorists' bodies, how did the terrorists get on board without being on the flight manifest? And the pilot of the flight was a former Navy pilot for some 27 years, and a year before 9/11 participated in the MASCAL contingency planning exercise that simulated a 757 plane hitting the Pentagon.

Here is a post I made on the AVS Loose Change thread about Flight 77, MASCAL, etc.:

Eyewitnesses and what they saw.

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Yes, some eyewitnesses saw one plane, some saw two. An ex-military guy heard "sonic booms" or something, some heard low-pitch engine sounds, some heard high. With an airport on the other side of the Pentagon on the same trajectory, a (second) plane could have easily landed within minutes. And multiple people reported he thought it was a smaller passenger airliner like this ( http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/35201728.jpg )

Planes can be painted, planes and missiles with wings look like planes, and when something flies by 20ft overhead at 400 miles an hour people don't have time to register in their minds what exactly they are seeing other than what looks like a plane. <EDIT - ADD: Op NW called for dummy planes to be painted and switched out to be destroyed instead of the real planes>

Again, say an airline did hit the Pentagon. That doesn't explain how it was expertly piloted (270 u-turn, flying hundreds of feet 20ft off the ground) by a guy who could barely fly a Cessna, why the bodies were recovered, including terrorist bodies not on the manifest, even though the plane itself was blown to smithereens and disappeared inside the 16'-18' hole, etc.

Here are quotes for what the guy barely capable of flying a Cessna pulled off:
"The unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver." -Washington Post
"The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a down-ward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes." -CBS
"...all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane...You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe...This must be a fighter." -ABC
Further on this page (http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/hijackers.html#fighter pilot) are quotes about the skill level of the supposed pilot of Flight 77, including "they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon.""


Another thing that sticks in my mind is that the pilot of Flight 77, Charles Burlingame, was an ex-Navy pilot and it is reported that he helped with the MASCAL project. This project helped make emergency plans in the event an airliner hit the Pentagon. After this, he got a job at AA, and ended up the pilot of the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. They had "worked out what would happen if a 757 hit the Pentagon" (http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=270&issueID=31 ) (so much for never expecting planes to be used as weapons). If you go here, you can see that it reports that Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, helped write MASCAL.
Here is info on that planning:
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

Is that too big of a coincidence to brush off?



Just one point about the "wheels" matching a 757 that some people use as proof it was Flight 77 -- as you can see from this picture, they also match the Global Hawk:
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/Global-Hawk-Landing.jpg
So the found wheel is not definitive either way.



Why would the feds whisk away all the security tapes minutes afterwards and not make them public, including the one from the gas station across the street that had recorded the impact/explosion? Wouldn't at least one tape showing an airliner recognizable as Flight 77 flying 20ft off the ground be evidence for the official story?

 

[Buckle-meister]

Is this what you are referring to?

Yes. I did say it wasn't my post didn't I. I've not even seen it myself yet. Stop picking on me!

 

[cyberbri]

Yes. I did say it wasn't my post didn't I. I've not even seen it myself yet. Stop picking on me!

I thought you said "watch it again." At first there wasn't any video or whatever. I followed a link and found some gif files of the simulations.
But I also thought you said it "explained everything away," so I was trying to figure out what exactly it was meant to "debunk."

 

[jaxvon]

Even members of US governments past and present have admitted to some illegal activities; I remember watching an interview with Kissinger, where he noted how the people of Chile had 'elected the wrong man', and that he couldn't allow that to happen. What did happen was murder, the overthrowing of a legally elected leader, and his replacement with a brutal dictator: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4176

Spoken like a true socialist.
Pinochet replaced a communist thug.Cleaned out the trash and brought it back to a market driven econmy.( which by the way was destroyed by the socialist before he steped in.)
I stand in awe of you Brits though.Pinochet is held in England to stand for trial in Spain, yet many African thug tribal leaders are allowed to go and come as they please.Does it have anything to do with being Anti- Socialist vs. Socialist?
I,m just currious.Using Pinochet as an example of America gone bad is realy puzzling.

Hah. Damn those evil Communists! I guess Kissenger was still doing the right thing when he delayed peace talks in Vietnam in order to help Nixon get elected in 1968. But you know, he had to do it, gotta keep those damned Communists at bay!

(If you couldn't tell the above paragraph was loaded with sarcasm).

 

[craigsub]

Ok, ignoring yet another immature jibe; given some the references I've posted, but reading your assertion about my lack of knowledge, does that mean you dispute their content?

To put it another way, what I do or do not personally know is pretty irrelevant; the fact is that there's overwhelming evidence (documents, photos, videos, transcripts) detailing criminal government behaviour.

Even members of US governments past and present have admitted to some illegal activities; I remember watching an interview with Kissinger, where he noted how the people of Chile had 'elected the wrong man', and that he couldn't allow that to happen. What did happen was murder, the overthrowing of a legally elected leader, and his replacement with a brutal dictator: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4176

Dismissing this wealth of evidence, by, again, attacking the person bringing the information to your attention, is simply akin to sticking your head in the sand.

Because you're not asking questions of these people, those that engage in criminal behaviour will continue, make more money, and cause more blood to flow.

Sploo, Once again, you post nonsense like "you're not asking questions of these people", then you link to "zmag.org" ... another "who the heck are these guys" blog web site.

"Zmag.org" is not a credible source for facts. It is another opinion piece which just happens to agree with your political rants.

 

[cyberbri]

Anyone see this review of "Flight 93"??

http://filmcritic1963.typepad.com/reviews/2006/04/united_93_.html

It mentions a few things I didn't know, like the transcripts of the cell phone calls (at 30K feet at 400mph or whatever? do cell phones even work at that altitude and that speed?):

"It’s bad news. I need you to be happy."

"Ted, what can I do? What can I tell the pilot?"

"We’ve been hijacked. He had an Islamic book."

"It’s getting very bad on the plane… the plane is making jerky movements."

And the passenger that introduced himself to his mother with his first and last name.


Or this tidbit:

It is an interesting footnote that United flight 93 was not scheduled to fly on 9/11, and that the plane (tail number N5IUA) was spotted by United Airline’s employee David Friedman on April 10, 2003 at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, and that the plane is listed as still valid with the FAA.

 

[naisphoo]

And this is why political and religious threads need to be banned.

SheepStar

and threads about subs also...or anything that is related to svs axiom and hsu