September 11th Attacks - Do You Think It Was a Conspiracy?

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- September 11th Attacks - Do You Think It Was a Conspiracy?
Pages (19): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-30-2007 00:14:

quote:
I ran into a fella, Tom Colden, who was on the 64th floor of the North Tower. When the first plane hit he said that everything was orderly, they were evacuating. But when the second explosion occurred and they lost power, lost lights, it was pandemonium. He said they just rushed down the stairs. Firefighters were there trying to lead them out dazed, covered with soot, covered with ash, just staggering away from the building, lucky to be alive.

Posted by Sunsnail on Jun-30-2007 00:32:

Why would there be multiple explosions?

Posted by colonelcrisp on Jun-30-2007 00:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, lay it out for us. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Anyone can type out a bunch of credentials. i don't know if they're real or not. Show us what you've debunked! Otherwise, I'm only able to consider what you're saying here as just another part of the Big lie.

if you look at the last few pages of the other 911 thread (the big one) culrout posted a list of "professional engineers" who are members of scholars for 911 truth. i merely took their names and searched the PE registry of the states in which they reside to see if they were or ever have been licensed. in all cases save 1 or 2, none of them had ever been licensed as an engineer. the two taht were, were not civil engineers.

i have never argued the suspicious events leading up to and during 911, BUT what i do understand much better than most forum members is the way in which that building was designed, and the weakness it had. one of my proff's from uni was actually involved with the study done by the ASCE following 911, i belive it was part of the FEMA report or released shortly there after. anyways he did a lecture on it in class the one day and explained in great detail the short commings of the desing especialy in the realm of fire protection, for the record my prof, professor hadjisophecleus (sp) is the chair of the canadian fire safety research council, and a highly distinguished professor of structural engineering.

the molten metal (if it was indeed molten metal) could have been insulated from cooling by the tons of debris on top of it. a tremendous ammount of heat was caused by teh buildings collapse, there is alot of energy dissapated in an event like that and that energy has to go somewhere.

Forensic engineering is not an exact science. there is no way to ever find out exactly what happened step by step. the final solution is almost always based on a series of most probable events. despite how much you CT people hate the word "pancake" theory.... it is the most feasibly failure mode for that structure given the dammage sustained by teh impacts and ensuing fires. i belive PKC posted a picture of rubble form ground zero that clearly showed a section of concrete that looked like a boulder with what looked like office papers sandwiched between layers of concrete.

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-30-2007 01:35:

quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
Why would there be multiple explosions?

They usually blow the interior weight bearing members first so that the building implodes or falls in upon itself as opposed to falling over or exploding outwards.

a normal building implosion:

that blasting sounds pretty distinct, doesn't it?

The WTC on 9/11:

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-30-2007 02:01:

quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
if you look at the last few pages of the other 911 thread (the big one) culrout posted a list of "professional engineers" who are members of scholars for 911 truth. i merely took their names and searched the PE registry of the states in which they reside to see if they were or ever have been licensed. in all cases save 1 or 2, none of them had ever been licensed as an engineer. the two taht were, were not civil engineers.

i have never argued the suspicious events leading up to and during 911, BUT what i do understand much better than most forum members is the way in which that building was designed, and the weakness it had. one of my proff's from uni was actually involved with the study done by the ASCE following 911, i belive it was part of the FEMA report or released shortly there after. anyways he did a lecture on it in class the one day and explained in great detail the short commings of the desing especialy in the realm of fire protection, for the record my prof, professor hadjisophecleus (sp) is the chair of the canadian fire safety research council, and a highly distinguished professor of structural engineering.

the molten metal (if it was indeed molten metal) could have been insulated from cooling by the tons of debris on top of it. a tremendous ammount of heat was caused by teh buildings collapse, there is alot of energy dissapated in an event like that and that energy has to go somewhere.

Forensic engineering is not an exact science. there is no way to ever find out exactly what happened step by step. the final solution is almost always based on a series of most probable events. despite how much you CT people hate the word "pancake" theory.... it is the most feasibly failure mode for that structure given the dammage sustained by teh impacts and ensuing fires. i belive PKC posted a picture of rubble form ground zero that clearly showed a section of concrete that looked like a boulder with what looked like office papers sandwiched between layers of concrete.

I'd probably believe it too but that theory holds so little water. The buildings came down at virtually freefall speed which for the most part rules out the Pancake Theory when given the fact that it's kinetic energy would be partially absorbed by each successive collapsing floor. That is, unless the support beams were cut which would allow them to fall freely.

The cleanup crew even remarked how they couldn't believe that the steal beams came down in such cleanly cut sections.

I thought Morgan Reynolds (professor emeritus at Texas A&M University) said it well here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

Posted by Trancer-X on Jun-30-2007 02:58:

quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp

the molten metal (if it was indeed molten metal) could have been insulated from cooling by the tons of debris on top of it. a tremendous ammount of heat was caused by teh buildings collapse, there is alot of energy dissapated in an event like that and that energy has to go somewhere.

these guys saw it:

and John Gross of the NIST acts like he had no clue:

(a little redundant as both of these were posted above)

Posted by culorut on Jun-30-2007 22:34:

quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
Why would there be multiple explosions?

Because it takes a few to bring down structures like the World Trade Towers.

Posted by culorut on Jun-30-2007 22:40:

quote:
the molten metal (if it was indeed molten metal) could have been insulated from cooling by the tons of debris on top of it. a tremendous ammount of heat was caused by teh buildings collapse, there is alot of energy dissapated in an event like that and that energy has to go somewhere.

The molten metal was present before they even started to cool off ground zero with water.

I am going to have to take the rescue workers and firefighters side on this one, they where actually present at the scene unlike that criminal (John Gross) from NIST who denies it being there at all.

Posted by Trancer-X on Jul-01-2007 00:19:

quote:
Lone Gunmen episode that aired prior to September 11th in which an inside faction of the government posing as terrorists hijacks a 727 by remote control and targets the World Trade Center.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen

Pilot episode "predicts" 9/11 In a foreshadowing of the September 11, 2001 attacks, subsequent conspiracy theories, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the plot of the March 4, 2001 pilot episode of the series depicts a secret U.S. government agency plotting to crash a Boeing 727 headed for Boston into the World Trade Center via remote control for the purpose of increasing the military defense budget and blaming the attack on foreign "tin-pot dictators" who are "begging to be smart-bombed." This episode aired in Australia less than two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, on August 30.

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-25-2007 18:24:

I like this clip where at about two and a half minutes into it Dubya talks about how the terrorists were instructed to plant the explosives high enough in the building so that it would prevent those who were trapped above from escaping.

Posted by DJ Shibby on Aug-28-2007 08:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X

I like this clip where at about two and a half minutes into it Dubya talks about how the terrorists were instructed to plant the explosives high enough in the building so that it would prevent those who were trapped above from escaping.

Sometimes I wonder if he really IS that stupid, or if he's dropping hints to warn us of some other controlling factor.

Hmm... naaaaaaaah, couldn't be.

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-28-2007 08:14:

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-28-2007 09:29:

Posted by Q5echo on Aug-28-2007 11:42:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X

what are you trying to convey with this one?

Posted by Q5echo on Aug-28-2007 11:44:

can't hear any bombs in this one, and he was in the building.

can't believe i'm doing this.

jsut looking at how the buildings collapse it's pretty obvious the structural failure that took place.

the one with the most weight to bear relative to the initial impact naturally falls first.

then the second comes down in on itself plain as day from the top all the way down to the ground. not the other way around like in controlled demolitions.

Posted by colonelcrisp on Aug-28-2007 12:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo

can't hear any bombs in this one, and he was in the building.

can't believe i'm doing this.

jsut looking at how the buildings collapse it's pretty obvious the structural failure that took place.

the one with the most weight to bear relative to the initial impact naturally falls first.

then the second comes down in on itself plain as day from the top all the way down to the ground. not the other way around like in controlled demolitions.

do my eyes decieve me? is that rational thought in a CT thread!!! my god it is...... nice to see someone else with their head firmly attached to their shoulders.... cheers

Posted by LazFX on Aug-28-2007 12:41:

quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
do my eyes decieve me? is that rational thought in a CT thread!!! my god it is...... nice to see someone else with their head firmly attached to their shoulders.... cheers

OMG!!! what if it becomes contagious???!!!??

Posted by colonelcrisp on Aug-28-2007 13:09:

quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
OMG!!! what if it becomes contagious???!!!??

the aggregate IQ score of this forum might rival that of a justin timberlake concert?

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-28-2007 17:58:

quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
the aggregate IQ score of this forum might rival that of a justin timberlake concert?

more ad hominems that don't pertain to anything even remotely related to the topic at hand.

You can all read about it here:
http://changingminds.org/techniques...ame_calling.htm

quote:

Techniques > Propaganda > Name-calling

Method
Call them names

Laugh at what targeted others say. Criticize their lack of values. Denounce their ideals. Turn around their words and actions, taking them out of context and amplifying them to drown out any denial (making denial seem like admission of guilt). Use other double-binds such that whatever they say or do only mires them more deeply.

Find a name that trivializes them and use it at every opportunity, with a smirk on your face and the laughter of your supporters.
Show up opponents

Make your opponents appear stupid, immoral or otherwise undesirable. Besmirch their untarnished reputation, holding it down in the mud, rubbing it in with the knowledge that much of the mud will stick. Be careful about the person retaliating. As necessary, ensure they are isolated and disempowered first.
Make an example of someone

Take a random person and denigrate them. Show that you can and will do this any opponents.

You can do it to an apparently strong person, to demonstrate that you are not afraid and will take on and defeat even the powerful. You can do it to a weak person, to show that nobody is safe from your ire. You can do it to an ordinary, guy-next-door person, to show that 'people like you' are not safe either.

Example

My opponent is a flip-flop man who cannot make up his mind. He changes mind with the breeze! How could anyone follow such a weak-willed flip-flopper?

Discussion

Mud sticks, as we all known. Name-calling associates the other person with something that is despised or is inferior in some way. Now, if anyone associates with that person, the mud will also stick to them. The more the other person is socially isolated, the more that others will avoid the person. The results is a spiral of isolation that neutralizes opponents and sends a chilling warning to those who might follow in that person's path.

Note how, especially in wartime, the other side gets given a whole slew of derogatory names. In the second world war, the Germans were called Huns, Krauts, the Boche, etc. The Japanese were called Nips, Japs, Slant-eyes, and so on.

Note also political elections, and how easily debates can descend into name-calling from which there is no recovery.

See also

Clyde Miller, Propaganda Analysis, NY: Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1937

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-28-2007 18:04:

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-28-2007 18:44:

quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
is that rational thought in a CT thread!!!

Now tell me about rational thought still believing that 19 Arabs plotted and defeating the most highly funded and most comprehensive intelligence network on the face of the planet with box cutters after taking some (unsuccessful) flight training aboard small Cessna aircraft - after being allegedly masterminded by some guy (living on a kidney dialysis machine) in a cave in Afghanistan?

Riiiiiight

Posted by Trancer-X on Aug-28-2007 18:54:

quote:

Now if the planes hit up above, how come there were cars on fire at the base of the building?

Posted by Q5echo on Aug-28-2007 20:37:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
Now if the planes hit up above, how come there were cars on fire at the base of the building?

please tell me you are not so obtuse that you can't even consider a jumbo jet slamming into a building couldn't set shit on fire on the streets 550 ft. below.

LOOK!

PLEASE tell be you are not so dense as to not even entertain the notion that, yes, multiple tons of debris, steel and airplane falling onto the plaza below COULD ACTUALLY break windows and "knock 10'x10' pieces of marble fascia" off in the lobby and set shit on fire. (from one of the other videos here of yours i cant find right now)

Posted by culorut on Aug-29-2007 22:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo

please tell me you are not so obtuse that you can't even consider a jumbo jet slamming into a building couldn't set shit on fire on the streets 550 ft. below.

LOOK!

PLEASE tell be you are not so dense as to not even entertain the notion that, yes, multiple tons of debris, steel and airplane falling onto the plaza below COULD ACTUALLY break windows and "knock 10'x10' pieces of marble fascia" off in the lobby and set shit on fire. (from one of the other videos here of yours i cant find right now)

Yes because jet fuel which burns almost instantly made its way down and burned the shit out all the surrounding cars.

Dense?

Posted by colonelcrisp on Aug-30-2007 03:43:

quote:
Originally posted by culorut
Yes because jet fuel which burns almost instantly made its way down and burned the shit out all the surrounding cars.

Dense?

burning jet fuel + office materials, uphostery paper etc falling out of building = fire hitting ground and catching shit on fire......

and for the record jet fuel wont burn instantly. its fumes will but the liquid will stay there and burn for a while

Pages (19): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »