TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.

9/11 demolition theory challenged

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

http://debunking911.com/paper.htm





-so, we have yet another peer-reviewed paper disagreeing with the crazy people. funny how the other side has yet to produce 1. i wonder why that it??

Great there you go again posting garbage from debunking911.com

The site just like the Popular Mechanics hit pieces are meant to spit out the same old dis-information over and over.

Maybe you forgot to read the important information out there regarding what CIA officials think about 911.

Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report

September 23, 2007

September 23, 2007 � Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. �I think at simplest terms, there�s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,� said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. �There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they�re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,� he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1]

During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA�s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration�s advocacy and use of torture.

In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,� edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: �It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole �war on terror� was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of �paranoid conspiracy theorists,� my highest possible recommendation.�

Continued:http://www.opednews.com/articles/ge..._veterans_c.htm

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Great there you go again posting garbage from debunking911.com The site just like the Popular Mechanics hit pieces are meant to spit out the same old dis-information over and over. Maybe you forgot to read the important information out there regarding what CIA officials think about 911. Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report September 23, 2007 September 23, 2007 � Seven CIA veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and have called for a new investigation. �I think at simplest terms, there�s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke,� said Raymond McGovern, 27-year veteran of the CIA, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates during the seventies. �There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they�re unanswered is because this administration will not answer the questions,� he said. McGovern, who is also the founder of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), is one of many signers of a petition to reinvestigate 9/11.[1] During his 27-year CIA career, McGovern personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA�s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from then President George H. W. Bush. However, McGovern returned the award[2] in 2006 in protest of the current George W. Bush Administration�s advocacy and use of torture. In his blurb for 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out,� edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, McGovern wrote[3]: �It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case, as the Downing Street memos show, that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole �war on terror� was based on a prior deception. This book hence confronts the American people---indeed the people of the world as a whole---with an issue second to none in importance and urgency. I give this book, which in no way can be dismissed as the ravings of �paranoid conspiracy theorists,� my highest possible recommendation.� Continued:http://www.opednews.com/articles/ge..._veterans_c.htm

i dont give a fuck you ignorant little turd.

jesus, why are you so stupid? what these people THINK is irrelevant. we are talking about what can be PROVEN. or what can be scientifically POSTULATED.

people's random opinions, regardless of who they used to be, is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. fuck, is it that fucking hard for you to grasp? i mean fuck, how dumb are you? tell me how your stupid response in ANY WAY undermines the study i referenced? you colossal moron.

perhaps you would like to explain to me how a PHD study that is published in the journal of engineering mechanics is in any way "disinformation" you fucking arseclown . that is a respected scientific journal, which is more than anything you fucktards have been able to provide in 6 years.

you obviously never studied anything that required the least bit of research or assessing said research. your arguments read like a bad highschool essay. fuck you.

Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 � Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations"

9/11 � Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations

There is at least one Aussie with some common sense.

quote:

jesus, why are you so stupid? what these people THINK is irrelevant. we are talking about what can be PROVEN. or what can be scientifically POSTULATED.

27 year veterans of the CIA do not know anything about black ops or cover ups?

You are the fucking idiot.

Idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 � Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations" 9/11 � Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations There is at least one Aussie with some common sense.

wow, you really are grasping at straws. that paper is full of fallacies and non sequiturs.

there is nothing in that paper that comes close to anything resembling a proper academic inquiry. you would know this if you had experience in anything other than importing food.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut 27 year veterans of the CIA do not know anything about black ops or cover ups? You are the fucking idiot. Idiot.

the fact you can't even see the illogical nature of your argument speaks volumes. youre merely pasting people's suspicions as fact. loser.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Dr. Frank Legge from Australia continues his diligent efforts to reach the public regarding 9/11 issues with his paper on the collapse of WTC 7 sans math, in an article entitled: "9/11 � Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations" 9/11 � Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations There is at least one Aussie with some common sense.

phd in chemistry? are you kidding me? who is your next expert witness for your case? dr bubbles?

his whole "paper" (if i can even call it that) is about as organized and logical as a grade 8 essay....it is no more credible than your endless posting of youtube videos (which he seems to use as irrefutable evidence)

just something else to muddy the waters here..

Can someone PLEASE explain the photo on the top-right? Ignore everything else on the page and explain that pic plz.

http://physics911.net/gallery/

The spark of light on the left is the nose of the plane touching the WTC. There is no way this little impact had time to create a shockwave that blows out the other side of the building..

looks to me like preplanted explosives going off in that building, timed to coincide with the airplane strike (a simple RF proximity sensor could do this).

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt just something else to muddy the waters here.. Can someone PLEASE explain the photo on the top-right? Ignore everything else on the page and explain that pic plz. http://physics911.net/gallery/ The spark of light on the left is the nose of the plane touching the WTC. There is no way this little impact had time to create a shockwave that blows out the other side of the building.. looks to me like preplanted explosives going off in that building, timed to coincide with the airplane strike (a simple RF proximity sensor could do this).

ok then professor smarty pants.... explain how the evil government was able to predict the exact point and floor of impact?

what do you think the odds are of a 727 being able to hit a building at precisely the right floor while travelling at upwards of 500 miles per hour?

im going to hazard a guess that you would have better luck winning the lottery 10 times in a row....

Let me hazard a guess. This is not a still photo. The plane was moving at a very high velocity. In this one single frame, the camera caught the plane as it was about to hit the left end, and over the duration of the frame, the plane crashed right through the building and was about to explode towards the other end of the building. The smoke you see is probably just milliseconds before the whole thing exploded. Sounds logical ?

It's actually quite likely that the plane exploded somewhere near the left end of the building. The pressure waves that developed, then traveled at supersonic speeds and out of the building walls.

I think this is the case because I did the math and it doesn't add up to what I said in my previous post. A plane cannot travel the distance of the WTC breadth within a frame, if it's traveling at the reported speed. Besides, the impact will abruptly change the speed so it cannot proceed with the same speed after the impact.

A commercial camera usually captures 24 frames per second. So one frame is about 0.0417 of a second. With the max speed given (it says between 500-800 kmph) the plane can only travel a distance of 9.3 meters in 0.0417 in free air. The width of the building is about 63 mts. If we assume that the plane traveled some distance into the building before exploding, it must atleast have traveled 10 meters or less (this is my guess, but it seems logical that the passenger plane cannot explode immediately on impact. It's not a missile. Or is it ? ) If you look at the frame, you see the smoke starting anywhere between 1/6th-1/4th of the distance of the breadth of WMC, from the left end.

So, the plane impacted the left side and exploded within 10 meters of the left end. The blast pressure waves traveled at supersonic speeds and ripped out the building. All of this happened within one frame and it got captured on the video. That is my best explanation of the event.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney�s Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath

http://journalof911studies.com/volu...MustTestify.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by culorut 9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney�s Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath http://journalof911studies.com/volu...MustTestify.pdf

don't you love culorut's technique in this thread? he won't stick around an actually argue any point in particular, just keeps posting nonsense ad nauseum.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's getting LOUDER

No one has ever posted any "9/11 was a terrorist job" videos.

Just thought I'd point that out.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut 27 year veterans of the CIA do not know anything about black ops or cover ups? You are the fucking idiot. Idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150

Yeah seriously. I don't know why people keep bothering to argue with culorut.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 No one has ever posted any "9/11 was a terrorist job" videos. Just thought I'd point that out.

would that make our side more legitimate?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo would that make our side more legitimate?

A direct response to the 911 conspiracy accusations would be nice..

I want to know who financed 911, because there is no credible report of how Osama was supposed to have financed the attack. Additionally, the one video the Bush admin claims shows Osama taking blame for the 911 attack actually shows a man resembling osama, but with a broad nose, unlike the slender nose of the real osama.

The Zeitgeist makes very VERY strong arguments, so if you can find a direct refutation of that one documentary, I'de be excited..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Zeitgeist makes very VERY strong arguments, so if you can find a direct refutation of that one documentary, I'de be excited..

yeah, strong if you're an ignorant hick who hasn't done their research.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton A direct response to the 911 conspiracy accusations would be nice..

...but it's gotta be in MPEG format?

quote:

I want to know who financed 911, because there is no credible report of how Osama was supposed to have financed the attack.

again, we find your knowledge wanting.

Osama has not been indicted, not even as a co-conspirator, on the 9/11 attacks. there is not enough evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ...but it's gotta be in MPEG format?

I want any refutation. I don't care if its text or mpeg. But specifically, if there is any refutation, other than pkc's attempts at an insult, the specifically addresses Zeitgeist, or NORAD stand-down then that would be nice..

quote:

again, we find your knowledge wanting. Osama has not been indicted, not even as a co-conspirator, on the 9/11 attacks. there is not enough evidence.

We? Or you and a couple folks? You act like the entire board is on your side..

It is clear who the Bush admin blames or appears to blame for this attack. OBL. "Dead or Alive." Remember that? I mean, they've made it pretty clear who they attribute as "responsible" for the attack.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton It is clear who the Bush admin blames or appears to blame for this attack. OBL. "Dead or Alive." Remember that? I mean, they've made it pretty clear who they attribute as "responsible" for the attack.

Bin Laden is under Federal indictment and wanted (FBI's 10 most wanted) for the African Embassy bombings.

Bin Laden, the declared leader and figurehead of Al Queera, the organization that purpetrated the 9/11 attacks, is also wanted as well for questioning.

these are not hard concepts to understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I want any refutation. I don't care if its text or mpeg. But specifically, if there is any refutation, other than pkc's attempts at an insult, the specifically addresses Zeitgeist, or NORAD stand-down then that would be nice..

there are refutations all over the internet, how bout you go look for them yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there are refutations all over the internet, how bout you go look for them yourself?

Already tried that with him on a number of topics, and I've also encouraged him to go to book stores. He's from Tampa - I even gave him directions as to where to find those "secret" bookstores.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Bin Laden is under Federal indictment and wanted (FBI's 10 most wanted) for the African Embassy bombings. Bin Laden, the declared leader and figurehead of Al Queera, the organization that purpetrated the 9/11 attacks, is also wanted as well for questioning. these are not hard concepts to understand.

Who does Bush cite as the responsible party for the 911 attacks?

From the 911 Commission Report..

"Failure to confront

The report charts how al-Qaeda was allowed to develop into a real danger to the US, concluding that while the attacks "were a shock... they should not have come as a surprise":

* "The 9/11 attack was driven by Osama Bin Laden" who "built over the course of a decade a dynamic and lethal organisation" in al-Qaeda

* "What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the US government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al-Qaeda plot"

* "The most important failure was one of imagination. We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat"

* "At no point before 9/11 was the Department of Defense fully engaged in the mission of countering al-Qaeda, even though it was perhaps the most dangerous foreign enemy threatening the United States"

* "The FBI did not have the capability to link the collective knowledge of agents in the field to national priorities"

* "The terrorist danger from Bin Laden and al-Qaeda was not a major topic for policy debate among the public, the media or in the Congress. Indeed, it barely came up during the 2000 presidential campaign"

* No single individual was to blame, but both individuals and institutions had to take responsibility for failing to stop the attacks

* There was no operational link between al-Qaeda and ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3917703.stm
----------------------------------------------------------

Who has the admin blamed for 911? Tell me PLEASE IM DYING TO KNOW..

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