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 »

Why do all the COR users turn up in the conspiracy threads?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Why do all the COR users turn up in the conspiracy threads?

Perhaps it's because it's the only thing pertaining to politics in which they find an interest?

I can't speak for them so I can only guess.

Deja vu

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=308778

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} hehe, someone has been reading David Icke if anyone is interested, i have a PDF file that has collected seismic data from the explosions and shockwaves registered at the time of the attacks. excellent proof that the US was behind their own attack.

I'm very interested. Go ahead. Send/post/point to it...

quote:

Originally posted by razmataz oh, fair enough then, good man that Danny.. Still I dont know of any other nation that uses the Fahrenheit scale apart from the U.S. Even Canadians tend to follow the Celsius scale.

Jamaica uses the Degree Fahrenheit, from what I've heard. But you're correct in that just about the _whole world_ outside USA uses the much more logical Degree Celcius (which is just the Kelvin minus 273.15)...

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09...w_seismic_.html

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0325/p03s01-usgn.htm

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?...&articleId=1129

http://sf.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=1697281

Please STOP calling this a conspiracy. A conspiracy is reserved for theories that have not yet proven and is purely based on speculation. I think that's why the skeptics are afraid to believe this thread because of this word alone.

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 Jamaica uses the Degree Fahrenheit, from what I've heard. But you're correct in that just about the _whole world_ outside USA uses the much more logical Degree Celcius (which is just the Kelvin minus 273.15)...

you do realize that because Fahrenheit is more stretched out it's more accurate? also, the imperial system is more practical, though a bit harder to get acustomed to than the metric system

Repost: I put too much work into this to be ignored!

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 The official story is that thousands of gallons of jet fuel melted the steel columns which weakened the core and caused a domino effect. This is absolute crap! Let's focus on the physical towers themselves. They are made of a high grade steel in accordance with the ASTM E119 standards. This steel is able to withstand temparatures of 2000-3000 degrees. The government tells us jet fuel melted this and is enough to burn a person to ashes. The problem is that jet fuel is directly made of pure kerosene which burns at a max of 400-1000 degrees farenheit. This is nowhere near melting point. If you ever ask a welder what he/she uses to melt steel they will NEVER use kerosene because they know that is a weak heat source. As far as melting a person to ashes, have you ever watched the WTC tapes? You can clearly see people at the point of impact waving for help. Why aren't they melting? That's because most jet fuel evaporates in the air within seconds. Here is some of actual calculations if you still don't believe me: What is jet/aviation fuel? Jet Fuel Heat Calculations Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America�s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)citing that no highrise structure have ever collapsed from a fire. Remember the WTC burned for a few hours. There have been other high rise buildings such as the First Interstate Bank Building in downtown LA which burned way longer than WTC did, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia which burned for 18 hours, and the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain which burned for almost 2 days as quoted by the BBC. In addition, the original architects and engineers of the towers were shocked at the collapse of the towers because they specifically designed the tower to withstand multiple plane crashes and not just one. SO WHAT MADE THE TWIN TOWERS & BUILDING 7 FALL? The official story for building 7 is that chunks of twin tower debris fell onto building 7, caught fire, and then collapsed. Again, complete lies because fire alone cannot level or total a high rise structure.According to Columbia University professor Won-Young Kim and Gerald Baum of Maryland Geological Survey they state that spikes shown in their seismic data from 9/11 show the classical patterns of a controlled demolition which could have only been cause by controlled demolitions. Here is the actual document with graphs: Seismic Data This was the reason the twin towers as well as building 7 fell. In a nutshell "all that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air." If you've taken any basic physics course you would know that this is true. Don't believe me? Read the red links which are the corrected statements of a PBS documenatry regarding the engineering of the WTC: PBS: Engineer's Perspective The world trade center complex is made up of the twin towers, building 7, and other high rises. The twin towers as well as building 7 were recently insured right before the attacks to Larry Silverstein according to a PBS documentary. Only the buildings that Larry insured were blown to pieces. This is because he was promised a big insurance policy in return for demolishing those buildings. Altough Larry did not know it was going to be done illegitamately. The statement that explosives were inside building 7 was made fact by Larry Silverstein himself in the PBS documentary in which he agreed, upon request to let his buildings be pulled on 9/11. What I'm saying is that our own U.S. government planted those explosives. The head of security for the twin towers was Marvin Bush (president Bush's brother) at the time whose contract expired 9/11. There are employees who share stories of random and unexplained security evacuations of the buildings. During this time was probably when the planting of explosives was finalized. Our government wants to throw us off by saying that Bin Laden did not have the means to plant the explosives from within given the security measures which would have made this impossible. Our government planned for this, but their stories are filled with countless holes that it's not even funny. And don't even get me started on the Pentagon. You can read more about that issue here as I'm getting tired now: The Pentagon, What Really Happened.... ADDITIONAL SOURCES: 9/11 - WTC 7 Underwriters Labs.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Please STOP calling this a conspiracy. A conspiracy is reserved for theories that have not yet proven and is purely based on speculation. I think that's why the skeptics are afraid to believe this thread because of this word alone.

I don't think the problem is the word "conspiracy" here. It's the word "theory" that follows it because that implies that it is not supported by evidence.

Re: Repost: I put too much work into this to be ignored!

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808

Did you write this yourself? It's pretty interesting, I saw a documentary that gave the exact same points. Everything from the seismic data, the melting temperatures, the fall of the buildings, etc. Can't remember the name, but the guy blamed the Illuminati for it

Is there anything I can read that tries to disprove what you wrote, would be interesting to see what points they give...

Re: Re: Repost: I put too much work into this to be ignored!

quote:

Originally posted by DarkFall01 Did you write this yourself? It's pretty interesting, I saw a documentary that gave the exact same points. Everything from the seismic data, the melting temperatures, the fall of the buildings, etc. Can't remember the name, but the guy blamed the Illuminati for it Is there anything I can read that tries to disprove what you wrote, would be interesting to see what points they give...

Yes I did, and I tried the best I can to stick with the facts and not speculation. I did digress a little in the end, but that was my own personal conclusion about the U.S. government. As far as disproving what I said, the first paragraph of my essay was actually a response to a Popular Mechanics article posted by another fellow TA. Unfortunately the chief editor of the magazine is Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, who is the head of Homeland Security here in the states. That was reason enough to dismiss the article. But I still read it and disproved it in my above post.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Btw, start a new thread in the PD or something. I rarely read the COR anymore which is why I never replied to you....We can continue in that thread if you like.

Sure! I will address your statements. Just need to do more reading.

BTW, I have never seen you in the COR, how come you don't go in there anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto you do realize that because Fahrenheit is more stretched out it's more accurate? also, the imperial system is more practical, though a bit harder to get acustomed to than the metric system

I do know what you speak of about Fahrenheit's 'accuracy' - the space between one degree and the next is smaller in Fahrenheit than in Celcius/Kelvin. This is why when you convert most Fahrenheit temperatures back (I would think that internally, meteorologists use SI/metric throughout) to Celcius, you get fractions like 8/9, etc.

(Try converting 67�F to �C and see what I mean: 19 4/9�C is the only answer, unless you indicate the fraction as '.44444444...'.)

Converting, say, 22�C to Degrees Fahrenheit = a 'clean' (no repeating decimals) 71.6�F. Most Degree Celcius-to-Degree Fahrenheit conversions have results like this and they are easily interpreted as well.

Fahrenheit is more accurate only when you are restricted to a certain number of decimal places. If you have unlimited space, Celcius/Kelvin is just as accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 I do know what you speak of about Fahrenheit's 'accuracy' - the space between one degree and the next is smaller in Fahrenheit than in Celcius/Kelvin. This is why when you convert most Fahrenheit temperatures back (I would think that internally, meteorologists use SI/metric throughout) to Celcius, you get fractions like 8/9, etc. (Try converting 67�F to �C and see what I mean: 19 4/9�C is the only answer, unless you indicate the fraction as '.44444444...'.) Converting, say, 22�C to Degrees Fahrenheit = a 'clean' (no repeating decimals) 71.6�F. Most Degree Celcius-to-Degree Fahrenheit conversions have results like this and they are easily interpreted as well. Fahrenheit is more accurate only when you are restricted to a certain number of decimal places. If you have unlimited space, Celcius/Kelvin is just as accurate.

Kelvin's 0 is the reason it is easier to use and Celcius' 0 is easier to use just because negative numbers are under freezing and positive are above freezing. fahrenheit being converted...why? and if you convert 19 4/9th from C to Fahrenheit, you'll get a easier rounder number. and as i've said imperial system is much more convinient to people in science fields. along with ofcourse the marvelous 12 inches = 1 foot... devide 1 meter in 3...cannot do that. devide 1 yard in three? perfectly 3 feet in each, also goes for 12 inches are easier to split up than 10 centimeters, 10 is only devisible by 5 and 2 (10 and 1 are kinda pointless). 12 however = 1,2,3,4,6, and 12.

A friend pointed me here...

Wow, there's some incredible information in your links, Tracer-X. Cheers.

It really is astounding how much evidence has been accumulated, yet still no-one at all is even close to being held accountable or responsible for 911...

Then there's the fact that the chain of command regarding derelict aircract, particularly hijacked aircraft, was ammended on June 1st, 2001 - just 3 months before 911!!

It removed NORADs executive authority on derelict aircraft - the way it had been for over 40 years. It changed the chain of command, such that all requests regarding taking any action towards any derelict aircraft (including hijacked), must be forwarded to the Department of Defence for approval.

Just adding to the 'coincidence' of the NORAD drills on the morning of 911... Jets WEREN'T ALLOWED to be scrambled without expressed authority from the secretary of defence, even if they did know what was and wasn't part of a drill.

If NORAD had the authority they had BEFORE June 1st 2001, The first plane probably wouldn't have made it - I only say 'probably' because of the drills that were orchestrated to confuse what was and wasn't real. But if the first plane DID make it, there would CERTAINLY have been jets immediately scrambled over NY. The second tower and the pentagon WOULD NOT have been hit. Everything going on is just far too manufactured.

Something's gotta give pretty soon. Just far too much damning 'coincidence' to be even slightly plausible.


HERE is a .pdf of the ammended policy regarding derelict aircraft.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Sure! I will address your statements. Just need to do more reading. BTW, I have never seen you in the COR, how come you don't go in there anymore?

I've become swamped with work and I only really have time to keep abreast with one forum. And when push comes to shove the PD wins out every time . That's part of the reason why I would prefer if you argued things one point at a time (the structural weakness of the steel or the seismic readings, etc.) because while I've found plenty of things wrong with some of the evidence sourced by sites such as whatreallyhappened, I don't like people linking a 20 page long site, I go off and spend several hours researching stuff and post my response, and the person never responds. I usually stay away from 9/11 debates anyway because I argued them to death the last few years. Example:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...hlight=pentagon

Anyway, cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I usually stay away from 9/11 debates anyway because I argued them to death the last few years. Example: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...hlight=pentagon

quote:

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." - Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, p. 184

quote:

Originally posted by bargain A friend pointed me here... Wow, there's some incredible information in your links, Tracer-X. Cheers.

No problemo!

Responce To Occrider

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But that's not the explanation for the falling towers. Most structural engineers agree that the steel became structurally weakened, not melted.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but there have been other high rise buildings such as the First Interstate Bank Building in downtown LA, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, and the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain which burned way longer than WTC did. In addition, the original architects and engineers of the towers were shocked at the collapse of the towers because they specifically designed the towers to withstand multiple plane crashes and not just one. No building has ever collapsed due to a fire. Here is a letter from Underwriters Laboratories (the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers) directly from the horse�s mouth who knows the properties of the steel used to built the towers. I don�t think I can get any more specific than this letter:

quote:

quote by Kevin Ryan Underwriters Laboratories Thursday, Nov 11, 2004 Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel�burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown�s theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building�s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I�m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and �chatter�. Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archiv...coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechani...ysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTC...L101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

***Oh and regarding this quote you made:

quote:

quote �while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.�

So the other burning office buildings I�ve mentioned did not have combustibles such as rugs, curtains, furniture and paper? Sorry, but the other buildings would have come down if this was the case. Besides �some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.
Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions, told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be �a smoky smoldering pile.�
Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.
This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements."

Kind of weird that the most of the heat after the collapse was in the lower basement columns rather than the oxygen rich surface rubble above, which further cements my suggestion that explosives had to be planted in the WTC.

quote:

Originally posted by by occrider I read the seismologist report. It says nothing of the sort. Have you read it?

Yes and you�re right. I was wrong. The spikes in the seismic data remain unexplained. If you look at the graph below there are two pairs of waveforms:

The 2 small waveforms are the impacts of the 2 planes hitting the towers and then there are the 2 unusual spikes that occurred after the impacts. The spikes are the main debate. Do you remember the WTC 1993 bombing? A truck bomb blew up on the 2nd level basement of one of the towers, but the seismic data from that blast did not register on the Richter scale because the bomb was not coupled to the ground. These 2 spikes suggest that there was �something� coupled to the ground which caused the seismograph to record these sudden waves. I used this argument to back up my suggestion that explosives were that �something� which caused the towers� collapse. Although since this is still being investigated I cannot comment further on the report until more solid evidence comes along.

quote:

Originally posted by by occrider I know friends personally who were driving on the highway and saw the plane itself before it hit the Pentagon. Are they all shills for the government? I'm not going to read through all the indymedia, whatreallyhappened websites because most reject arguments with some science and then they make their own baseless conjectures without backing any of them up. If you care to post one argument at a time and argue them personally I'll go ahead and debate it with you , but I'm not going to spend the time arguing with 50 million indy websites.

I�ll probably give you this one if you can tell me what type of plane was it that your friends saw. Was it a Boeing passenger plane or a private jet which can only carry 15 people or so? I would be more willing to believe this if a private jet which caused the Pentagon hole. It�s just that the neatly punched hole and the lack of damage to the pentagon lawn did not convince me that it was a passenger plane. A classic physics example is a baseball hitting a window. It does a whole lot more damage than a bullet. The bullet only causes a bullet hole in the window. This is because the faster the particle, the more localized the damage. A plane would have done a lot more damage.

Regarding the latter statement you made, I've tried my best to present you with the facts "one argument at a time" and nothing baseless. I also can honestly tell you that I'm not a government shill and that my conclusions are in accordance with the research I gathered.

Holy shit! That's a very good post stevieboy32808. I'm looking forward to occrider's response.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Holy shit! That's a very good post stevieboy32808. I'm looking forward to occrider's response.

I was hesitant to post that graph, so I never did. The reason being is that I saw one that included much more detail, to the point that it made that one look amateurish. I studied it about a year or so ago, but haven't been able to find it since. There are some online videos that show a more in-depth version of it, which is probably closer to the one I'm talking about.

Anyway, here's an interesting vid that details the initial response to the explosions that were going off in the buildings, etc.

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

Best academic post I've seen so far advocating a different explanation for the towers falling than the official one. Of course making the case for a controlled demolition is a different story altogether since the explosives used in controlled demolitions are very sensitive in general (we're not talking simple c4 explosives here) and the insulation required for their effective use is very visible, however, lets just say the alternative hypothesis is to disprove the official explanation and we can go from there. Just saw this now, so give me time to do some research. This is very focused which I like. The specific issues you have raised are:

A) The temperatures in question that were able to weaken the steel such that the towers collapsed (remember the official explanation is not that the temperatures were so high that steel melted and caused the collapse, but that they became malleable and structurally insufficient to bear their lodes).

B) The type of plane to hit the Pentagon and the "discrepancy" between the size of the plane and size of the damage to the Pentagon and the damage to the lawn.

If I've misrepresented your arguments let me know. But I shall get on it ... this should be a good discussion since we're sticking with factual arguments as opposed to logical fallacies and assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider If I've misrepresented your arguments let me know. But I shall get on it ... this should be a good discussion since we're sticking with factual arguments as opposed to logical fallacies and assumptions.

It's difficult to know what the facts really are when your own government eschews lies in regards to the evidence surrounding the particular events of 9/11.

What about all of those wargames that were supposedly used for cover, which have yet to be officially disclosed to the public? Hmmmmm? There's a lot more to it than just the possibility of controlled demolition taking down those buildings. It was an attack which was unprecedented in both it's scope and it's required level of planning.

quote:

McKinney: Well Mr. Chairman, the problem is - and I appreciate your adherence to the five-minute rule - however there are many of us who have important questions and my question in particular is about the four war games that were taking place on September 11th and how they may have impaired our ability to respond to those attacks. http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/030..._question.shtml

quote:

Finally Mr. Secretary, after the last Hearing, I thought that my office was promised a written response to my question regarding the four wargames on September 11th. I have not yet received that response, but would like for you to respond to the questions that I've put to you today. And then I do expect the written response to my previous question - hopefully by the end of the week. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fr...ranscript.shtml

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.