What Really Happened on 9/11?

[Gravy]

Second, consider the blatent lies told to you by the CTers.

Here's a brief example. On the LC forum there's a thread titled "Police Admit Explosives Found in WTC"

"Wow," I thought. "I've never heard that before. Let's take a look."

And guess what? The post linked to a story that after the attack police were suspicious of a van at or near the site. That's it. No explosives. No "Admission."

Several Loosers responded to that post as if it was a great find and should be included in the next LC videeo. No one refuted it.

CptFarlow, they do this again and again and again. Please think for yourself.

 

[hellaeon]

Here's a brief example. On the LC forum there's a thread titled "Police Admit Explosives Found in WTC"

"Wow," I thought. "I've never heard that before. Let's take a look."

And guess what? The post linked to a story that after the attack police were suspicious of a van at or near the site. That's it. No explosives. No "Admission."

Several Loosers responded to that post as if it was a great find and should be included in the next LC videeo. No one refuted it.

CptFarlow, they do this again and again and again. Please think for yourself.

Point about critical thinking noted gravy, that is more essentail then understanding the science behidn it and the above example illustrates why.

cheers

 

[valis]

Remember when those planes flew over the White House last year? Fighters were there within minutes to get them out of there. Those were small planes. Isn't a bit odd that a commercial 757 flying towards to Pentagon was ignored?

Google search 9-11 research. Go to analysis and click NORAD stand-down on the left. I can't post URLs yet.

The problem is it doesn't clearly make your case. If you go to the footnoted article it mentions planes being scrambled or diverted 67 times pre 911 but doesn't say under what circumstances those took place. Were those off course domestic flights or were they suspicous contacts approaching the country? The article does mention that Post 911 there was close scrutiny of domestic traffic that strayed from their flight path. The article seems to say that in retrospect things could have been done a little quicker but a smoking gun it is not.

Here is the link if anyone feels I have mis-interpreted please let me know, maybe I missed something.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

 

[valis]

2. I never brought up black folks. He simply has no use for anyone that is not rich.

Here is the original text of the post I replied to:

Originally Posted by valis:
How does V.P. Cheney make money from black people not having electricity?

Easy question

To Cheney they don't exist; or at least they are a mere thorn in his side.

Okay I guess technically you didn't 'bring up' black people but how else can that exchange be interprated?

But anyhow I have a follow up:

So you are saying the VP personally was in charge of handing out contracts for the rebuilding of New Orleans?

How do you know Mr. Cheney's attitude towards poor people, do you know him?

 

[ntech]

Just because you were there and saw it don’t mean sheeit! We all know that anecdotes aren’t evidence; it’s part of the Closed Minded Skeptic Creed.

Well…maybe Corporal Farlow’s anecdotes are evidence. Yeah, that’s it.

There is a vast difference between normal skepticism and an absurd claim. It is establish fact regarding 911. You would need to provide extraordinary proof of your claim. It is not on me to prove your view is a deluded myth

 

[rwguinn]

But the argument for fire brought down the towers refutes itself as well. Not only has fire never brought down steel building, those fires burnt for less than two hours. No matter what anybody says, I simply cannot understand how fire could have done it. The jet fuel burnt up almost right away. The rest in the next few minutes. So you are saying that burning office materials and furniture did it? Why would the building collapse all at once? The floors didn't pancake, there would have been at least a second while the momentum was transfered to the next floor...blah blah blah...you have all heard it all before...and not listened to it...this is pointless.

That's because you have no concept of reality and physics. Momentum transfer happens NOW. It doesn't wait for things to catch up.
You also ignore the fact that(1) No building had ever been so damaged by impact, followed by fire. at least none that remained standing for so long after the inital damage (See the Netherlands apartment pics, above) (2). the JP-4 and impact Burned away fire protection coatings, and (3) took out a LOT of support columns. Add the remaining fire to thye mix, with 50% load-carrying capability left in the remaining steel, and it falls.
Physics doesn't work piecemeal-all factors combine.

Oh we do? Then why are so many questions unanswered?

because you have your fingers in your ears, saying "La LA La! I can't hear you"?

It's great to know you can't have a good debate without insulting...



I've read just about every site on 9/11. Both for the CD theory, and against. Both have some good points, but the one that makes the most sense to me is the CD theory.

Good-you let us know which group you belong to--the ones whjo cannot learn.




rest of repetitive babble snipped.

Edited for dumb tyhumbs

 

[CptFarlow]

There have already been pictures posted here recently about airplanes melting due to fire. I just looked quickly at Wikipedia and found this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AFFlight3580803CORRPanSM.jpg

The aluminum on much of the top of the plane is gone. The other photos I've seen here are better, involving a fire while on the runway, but you get the idea - aluminum melts in a fire.

Sure, but titanium doesn't.

 

[CptFarlow]

I think I made this point before, but to the claim that the fires couldn't get hot enough to weaken steel:

I have proof that the fires could get hot enough, and it's in my closet. Let me know if you want to see it. It's a hand-forged steel longsword.

People have been using fire to shape bronze, iron, and steel for hundreds of years now (thousand for iron and bronze). You don't need jet fuel or explosives (besides, explosives would not melt it, they'd cut/break it...explosive force is mostly blast, very little heat). And when forging, the temperature is not at the melting point of steel. However, it does soften it enough that a relatively modest force can shape and bend it.

You are wrong there...thermite would produce temperatures to at least 2500 degrees F. Look it up.

Likewise, the heat of fires in the towers caused the steel to heat, which made it more pliable. Once it started to give, the load transferred to other steel beams/columns (which were also affected, to a degree, by the heat) which could no longer handle the extra load...causing a collapse. That collapse landed on another floor (already weakened) and carried with it the weight of the floors it had been supporting above it. It's easy to see how this can quickly escalate to total collapse.

That doesn't make sense. They were made to withstand fire, multiple plane hits, even a 150 year old storm...

So four floor fire that lasted for less than an hour leads to a total building collapse...hmmm...am I the only one that sees that as fishy? Why would they put in a sprinkler system if the smallest fire was going to cause a total collapse?

 

[Piggy]

Has anybody read Steven Jones' report? Oh yeah, I forgot, he's a hack. All I ask for is that his claims are investigated. He doesn't even claim that there were explosives, simply that evidence suggests there was. No, he isn't a structural engineer, so by the logic of most of you, none of us are qualified to even talk about the collapse.

Oh, yeah, lots of folks have read his paper. And the structural engineers at his own university, as well as his colleagues in his own department, unanimously repudiate it. These are people who are qualified to talk about the collapse, and as has been pointed out on this thread, all of us are qualified to read all sides and have an opinion, but it seems that only the skeptics are willing to consider all sides and weigh them on their merits rather than on preconceived notions.

Steven Jones' "report" carries about as much weight as a fart in a hurricane.

 

[kookbreaker]

Sure, but titanium doesn't.

How much of a plane do you think is made of titanium?

 

[CptFarlow]

The problem is it doesn't clearly make your case. If you go to the footnoted article it mentions planes being scrambled or diverted 67 times pre 911 but doesn't say under what circumstances those took place. Were those off course domestic flights or were they suspicous contacts approaching the country? The article does mention that Post 911 there was close scrutiny of domestic traffic that strayed from their flight path. The article seems to say that in retrospect things could have been done a little quicker but a smoking gun it is not.

Here is the link if anyone feels I have mis-interpreted please let me know, maybe I missed something.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

But the odd thing is, on this one day, which ended up being the biggest excuse for our administration's actions, a plane was allowed to fly directly towards the Pentagon with nobody blinking an eye until it was too late. If those single engine planes were so easy to spot, why was a commercial jetliner so hard to notice?

 

[kookbreaker]

You are wrong there...thermite would produce temperatures to at least 2500 degrees F. Look it up.

Your comment does not follow Huntsman's comments.

That doesn't make sense. They were made to withstand fire, multiple plane hits, even a 150 year old storm...

They were not made to take a 450mph. 30,000+ liter molotov cocktail.

So four floor fire that lasted for less than an hour leads to a total building collapse...hmmm...am I the only one that sees that as fishy? Why would they put in a sprinkler system if the smallest fire was going to cause a total collapse?

You call the inferno that resulted 'the smallest fire'?

Remind me not to go to any BBQ's at your place.

 

[kookbreaker]

But the odd thing is, on this one day, which ended up being the biggest excuse for our administration's actions, a plane was allowed to fly directly towards the Pentagon with nobody blinking an eye until it was too late. If those single engine planes were so easy to spot, why was a commercial jetliner so hard to notice?

Ever look at a map of Washington DC? Find the Pentagon, then find the closest Airport. Then find the no fly zone around the Mall.

 

[Piggy]

But the odd thing is, on this one day, which ended up being the biggest excuse for our administration's actions, a plane was allowed to fly directly towards the Pentagon with nobody blinking an eye until it was too late.

You obviously have not listened to the FAA radio transmissions, which have been made public. Please do so.

Also, 9/11 was demonstrably NOT the administration's biggest excuse for invading Iraq. The deciding factor was WMD. Go back and look at Powell's testimony to the UN and Bush's televised statements.

You are simply wrong about this.

 

[CptFarlow]

Oh, yeah, lots of folks have read his paper. And the structural engineers at his own university, as well as his colleagues in his own department, unanimously repudiate it. These are people who are qualified to talk about the collapse, and as has been pointed out on this thread, all of us are qualified to read all sides and have an opinion, but it seems that only the skeptics are willing to consider all sides and weigh them on their merits rather than on preconceived notions.

Steven Jones' "report" carries about as much weight as a fart in a hurricane.

Then take it upon yourself to prove me wrong. Take a look at this, and let me know what you think. It is Jones' discussing his theory. It's over 2 hours long, and I'm only 53 minutes into it, but already he shows clean evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers. How is this so hard to believe? We've seen it throughout history...but are we going to notice it when it happens again? Or just ridicule those who see what's not traditionally accepted...

 

[kookbreaker]

Then take it upon yourself to prove me wrong. Take a look at this, and let me know what you think. It is Jones' discussing his theory. It's over 2 hours long, and I'm only 53 minutes into it, but already he shows clean evidence that fires couldn't have brought down the towers.

What, pray tell, is this 'clean evidence'. He certainly has not produced any of it in his 'paper' *spit*. In short, I am not going to waste 3 hours listening to Cold Fusion boy explain why he is smarter than the worlds structural engineers and top Fire experts without cause.

How is this so hard to believe? We've seen it throughout history...but are we going to notice it when it happens again? Or just ridicule those who see what's not traditionally accepted...

When it happens it is typically an event that happened by accident (Maine) or a very simple act (Burn down the Reichstag Building). NOT an immense and overcomplicated plot involving replacing planes, placing explosives in highly secure buildings with bomb sniffing dogs on patrol, etc. etc.

Why is it so hard for you to beleieve that the buildings fell as a result of the damage and fire?

 

[CptFarlow]

You obviously have not listened to the FAA radio transmissions, which have been made public. Please do so.

Also, 9/11 was demonstrably NOT the administration's biggest excuse for invading Iraq. The deciding factor was WMD. Go back and look at Powell's testimony to the UN and Bush's televised statements.

You are simply wrong about this.

Oh come on, we know that Bush lies out his ass.

It has already been found that he wanted to go to Iraq before he got elected. It is also known that no WMDs were found.

Also, what do the FAA radio transmissions say? Do they ignore the flight heading towards the Pentagon? I will listen to them after I watch the video I'm watching.

 

[Gravy]

You obviously have not listened to the FAA radio transmissions, which have been made public. Please do so.

CptFarlow, WILL you do what Piggy suggests? It's a start. Take it one step at a time. And have you read the 9/11 Commission report and other engineering reports? If so, please be specific about how you disagree. Vague statements aren't going to help.

 

[Gravy]

I will listen to them after I watch the video I'm watching.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[kookbreaker]

It has already been found that he wanted to go to Iraq before he got elected. It is also known that no WMDs were found.

So you are saying this administration is so skilled that it can plant explosives in the busiest building in the largest city in the Union without anyone noticing, but is also so incompetant that they can't plant some WMDs in the uninhabited desert?

Did you miss the disconnect there?

Speaking of which, WMDs, real or imaginary, were the primary impetus for going to war with Iraq.