• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questions for 9/11 Truthers

Don't leave out this other, "Crying Virgin Mary," piece of evidence...where one of the passports from the terrorists, magically floated down and survived not only the plane crash but the collapse of the Twin Towers.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92492&page=2

Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks

"The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent," published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September (2001) place and date of interview not given.

http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

You do not research enough to understand much.

But you got me now, UBL says he did not do it! You win. You are now a real reseacher, wonder why he tells us later he did it? Maybe he was looking for hiding place trying to lie to us?

Do you have real evidence now? Let me check with the rest of the NWO guys over at LC. Be right back...
 
Why did the denials cease? If they didn't do it, why not continue to profess their innocence? Don't you think that's a little strange?

Because the man himself is deceased? But I doubt you believe that.

Are you familiar with the concept of taqiyya?

Not before. But I read about it now.

You're trying to apply the principles of logic to the actions of a terrorist? It's not logical to ascribe logical motivations to man who's an Islamic extremist. He's not motivated by logic. He's motivated by his (very illogical) religious beliefs. The failure in logic here is completely yours.

Ok. Let's try this another way. You could have captured this illogic Islamic extremist before 9/11 during Clinton administration. Why didn't you?

What proof do you have that the bandana (or anything else) is false evidence? Your ill-founded belief that bandanas just cannot or should not survive plane crashes intact does not qualify as evidence.

What proof do you have that they remain intact? If you wear a bandana on your head and your head explodes (no intact heads were found) this bandana escapes without a drop of blood?

I think there is no middle ground on the basic facts, which are that 19 jihadists hijacked some airplanes and flew them into buildings on September 11. All else is open for debate.

You have already made up your mind, and discuss things around that basic fact of yours, not questioning that basic assumption itself.

Now you're asking a different question. You're asking if the government had warning of an impending attack. I think that's an honest question worthy of investigation and debate.

More about the topic on the co-operative research website.

I think you are infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome

He's not the only man I think lies. And your country is not the only one to have leaders lying.

And you are wrong on both counts -- about there being no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and about your implication that WMD was somehow a phony issue with Iraq that Bush "lied" about. It was a real issue, and the subject of grave concern by people inside and outside the Bush administration (and even outside the United States), and for very good reasons.

Say what? Where is your general knowledge?

"THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, a long-awaited declassified US Senate report has revealed.
The finding, contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee, is a major embarrassment for President George Bush and casts more doubt on the reasons why the so-called "Coalition of the willing" went to war."


- Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post

And I would really appreciate your evidence on WMD.

That's untrue.

Not. For example flight 11 was hijacked around 8:13 but did not turn back until 8:24. Flight 93 9:28 to 9:35. And so on.
 
Too bad I can't post links yet. But for example using google you can find the NIST media public briefing. On page 31. Shows maximum temperature reached by each column. That has what to do with paint? No mention of paint there. That is an actual column temperature picture, with color indicating the temperature reached in.

Sir,

What a splendid point you have brought up. The oven in household stoves reach these types of temperatures. Here is the link to the NIST Media Public Briefing. Page 31 shows the temps of each column:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf


Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/08/AR2006090800777.html
 
Last edited:
Sir,

What a splendid point you have brought up. The oven in household stoves reach these types of temperatures.

No they do not. The graph shows several column temperatures of 500+ Celcius. Unless you've got some high-powered oven, I don't think so.

The air and the fire, meanwhile, was much hotter. See page 30.

Comparisons to ovens are illegitimate. Your oven has opportunity to draw off the heat, and the air temperature (which never gets to 400-500C) is not the oven body temperature.

Also, please try to recall that the reason not all the column have temperatures is because they are GONE due to the impact.
 
Of course, they would be the impact floors....notice how each tower has a row of columns missing on one side. That would be where the planes hit and knocked them out.
then why are the pictures labeled "all floors"

let me give you some background on how they dtermined these temperatures

they analyzed the paint on the columns to find out the temperature they had been exposed to, NIST states that these number are not representative for all the columns since many of them didnt have enough paint left to analyze

knowing that, does it stand to reason that paint exposed to higher temperatures was burned off and could not be analyzed by NIST?
 
Helen Keller?

Good question that...why her archives were entirely kakked.

Thinking as a conspiracy theorist, I would say:

"Because Helen Keller was a Communist in her adult life, and spoke up against the New World Order and the government. So the NWO had to eliminate her past to maintain her as an icon of achievement and obedience for the brainwashed masses. Helen Keller's life is sanitized to schoolchildren to focus on her education, not her adult life, because her adult life is an embarrassment to the NWO and the Jewish bankers."

Thinking as a rational person, I say:

"Because the 19 Saudi skunks with boxcutters neither knew nor cared that the Helen Keller archives were in the Twin Towers. They just wanted to slam their planes against the buildings, kill as many people as possible, preferably Jews, scare the heck out of the rest, terrify America into surrender and break-up, and join those 72 virgins in Paradise."
 
Because the man himself is deceased? But I doubt you believe that.

Evidence?

Not before. But I read about it now.

Keep it in mind next time an Islamic extremist tells you something you find agreeable.

Ok. Let's try this another way. You could have captured this illogic Islamic extremist before 9/11 during Clinton administration. Why didn't you?

I suggest you direct that question to former President Clinton.

What proof do you have that they remain intact? If you wear a bandana on your head and your head explodes (no intact heads were found) this bandana escapes without a drop of blood?

Well, for one thing, the investigators have the bandana. Secondly, what makes you think it was on someone's head at the moment of impact? Were you in the plane?

You have already made up your mind, and discuss things around that basic fact of yours, not questioning that basic assumption itself.

I have seen no evidence to support 99% of what conspiracy theorists claim, and overwhelming evidence to support the basic facts.

Say what? Where is your general knowledge?

"THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, a long-awaited declassified US Senate report has revealed.
The finding, contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee, is a major embarrassment for President George Bush and casts more doubt on the reasons why the so-called "Coalition of the willing" went to war."

Ahem:

THERE is no evidence of formal links between former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders before the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003

The rest of the quote you cite is blatant editorializing.

And I would really appreciate your evidence on WMD.

From http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack:

The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. It was first advanced at the end of the 1990s, at a time when President Bill Clinton was trying to facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and was hardly seeking assessments that the threat from Iraq was growing.

In congressional testimony in March of 2002 Robert Einhorn, Clinton's assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, summed up the intelligence community's conclusions about Iraq at the end of the Clinton Administration:

"How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

In October of 2002 the National Intelligence Council, the highest analytical body in the U.S. intelligence community, issued a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's WMD, representing the consensus of the intelligence community. Although after the war some complained that the NIE had been a rush job, and that the NIC should have been more careful in its choice of language, in fact the report accurately reflected what intelligence analysts had been telling Clinton Administration officials like me for years in verbal briefings.

Not. For example flight 11 was hijacked around 8:13 but did not turn back until 8:24. Flight 93 9:28 to 9:35. And so on.

That's 11 minutes in one case and 7 minutes in the other. That doesn't qualify (IMO) as a "long time". And even if it did qualify as such, it proves absolutely nothing, except that it took a few minutes for the hijackers to overcome the flight crews, clear the bodies out, and get their bearings before making their initial turns.
 
No they do not. The graph shows several column temperatures of 500+ Celcius. Unless you've got some high-powered oven, I don't think so.

The air and the fire, meanwhile, was much hotter. See page 30.

Comparisons to ovens are illegitimate. Your oven has opportunity to draw off the heat, and the air temperature (which never gets to 400-500C) is not the oven body temperature.

Also, please try to recall that the reason not all the column have temperatures is because they are GONE due to the impact.

You do make a fair point, because it's the air in the oven of a stove that reaches around 300C, and not the metal/steel inside of it. The max air temp on the impact floors was a bit higher than this at around 1000C...however, look at how many core columns are left on each tower. WTC 1: 41 WTC 2: 37 - and there are no core columns on WTC 2 with a temp above 250C.

"However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers. " NIST FAQ 7

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST claims that unprotected steel can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned. Okay, that's fine...but NIST clearly shows us that this did not happen. In fact, on WTC 2, the core columns only reached a max temp of around 250C - that's 1/6th of steel's melting point i.e 1500C - I know NIST didn't claim the steel melted, I'm just giving a comparison.
 
You do make a fair point, because it's the air in the oven of a stove that reaches around 300C, and not the metal/steel inside of it. The max air temp on the impact floors was a bit higher than this at around 1000C...however, look at how many core columns are left on each tower.

"Left", however, does not mean intact. Note the damage to remaining columns on page 18.

WTC 1: 41 WTC 2: 37 - and there are no core columns on WTC 2 with a temp above 250C.

However your are missing many core columns from impact and the outer columns are at higher temps. WTC2 is missing a LOT more than WTC1.

NIST claims that unprotected steel can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned. Okay, that's fine...but NIST clearly shows us that this did not happen. In fact, on WTC 2, the core columns only reached a max temp of around 250C - that's 1/6th of steel's melting point i.e 1500C - I know NIST didn't claim the steel melted, I'm just giving a comparison.

Again, this ignores the fact that many more core columns were missing in WTC2 and that the side columns were heated to higher temps.
 
However your are missing many core columns from impact and the outer columns are at higher temps. WTC2 is missing a LOT more than WTC1.

What sides are you referring to? The sides of the buildings? Those are virtually unheated except for one corner on WTC 2. And out of the 37 (non-severed) core columns, NIST shows only twelve of them have any signs of heat. (with a max temp of about 250C) And according to page 21 - only one of these remaining (non-severed) core columns has heavy damage. The rest only show light to moderate damage.

So how did all of these core columns fail? The core columns on the floors above the impact obviously had no heat and damage, so how did they fall down on the impact floor(s) core columns when 37 of the core columns on WTC 2 were completely non-severed with only one of the remaining 37 columns showing heavy damage, and only 12 of the 37 showing low temps around 250C.
 
What sides are you referring to? The sides of the buildings? Those are virtually unheated except for one corner on WTC 2. [?QUOTE]

I am talking about the side of the building columns. They are important to the structure and they got hot!

Combine that heat wekaness with the severed and damaged columns and I am amazed you guys can't figure out the cause of failure.

Now keep in mind this building failure is going to be examined for, oh, about the next century or so in failure analysis class in Architecture and Engineering schools around the world. They are going to be analyzing to hell and back and , with no signifigant quibbles, are going to come to much the same conclusion!

Yet somehow you know better, are you that arrogant?
 
Questions for truthers?

Why do you post on a thread and have no idea the topic?

Why do you post off topic on thread about questions to ask truthers?

Why are you real dumb and post off topic like me?

Why do truthers have no idea what happen on 9/11?

Why does each truther have his own unique made up story of 9/11?

What do you really do for a living?
 
Why does each truther have his own unique made up story of 9/11?
ive often wondered that myself, they all point to different smoking guns and comment how the truth is so obvious

if its so obvious why cant any CTers agree? doesnt the definition of "smoking gun" pretty much mean theres no contest? how can everyone have different smoking guns?
 
Combine that heat wekaness with the severed and damaged columns and I am amazed you guys can't figure out the cause of failure.

"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers." NIST FAQ 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Is it so surprising that we can't understand how the core columns came down, considering the fact, that NIST doesn't even explain what happened to them? Just because the floors and perimeter columns collapse, doesn't mean the core columns will do the same thing. So how did the 37 non-severed core columns on WTC 2 fail, when only 12 of them suffered minimal heat? That leaves 25 non-severed non-heated core columns with only 5 of the 25 suffering any damage (1 light damage, 1 heavy damage & 3 moderate damage) So that leaves 20 completely undamaged and unheated core columns. Now, how did those fail?
 
Is it so surprising that we can't understand how the core columns came down, considering the fact, that NIST doesn't even explain what happened to them? Just because the floors and perimeter columns collapse, doesn't mean the core columns will do the same thing. So how did the 37 non-severed core columns on WTC 2 fail, when only 12 of them suffered minimal heat? That leaves 25 non-severed non-heated core columns with only 5 of the 25 suffering any damage (1 light damage, 1 heavy damage & 3 moderate damage) So that leaves 20 completely undamaged and unheated core columns. Now, how did those fail?
in WTC 2 the perimiter columns failed due to the bowing, upon this failure all load normally supported by the perimiter columns was placed on the core, including about 50% of the gravity load and 100% of wind shear and tranverse loads (which the core was never designed to take)

why is the cores failure so surprising again?
 
"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers." NIST FAQ 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Is it so surprising that we can't understand how the core columns came down, considering the fact, that NIST doesn't even explain what happened to them? Just because the floors and perimeter columns collapse, doesn't mean the core columns will do the same thing. So how did the 37 non-severed core columns on WTC 2 fail, when only 12 of them suffered minimal heat? That leaves 25 non-severed non-heated core columns with only 5 of the 25 suffering any damage (1 light damage, 1 heavy damage & 3 moderate damage) So that leaves 20 completely undamaged and unheated core columns. Now, how did those fail?

Please move your not on topic stuff to the appropriate thread 28th

Please move your stuff.

Ask a truther question like;

Why do truthers post off topic items in the wrong thread?

Why am I dumb enough to post a truther in the wrong thread? @#$#
 
in WTC 2 the perimiter columns failed due to the bowing, upon this failure all load normally supported by the perimiter columns was placed on the core, including about 50% of the gravity load and 100% of wind shear and tranverse loads (which the core was never designed to take)

why is the cores failure so surprising again?

Do you have a source for the perimeter columns normally taking 50% of the gravity load?

Once the floors had collapse, what load was the core supporting? It only had to support itself
 

Back
Top Bottom