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 »

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 BINGO...because the looked foolish...u dont get it and i am not sure why...if they DID plant the WMD the world would accept the US invasion of Iraw a lot more then they do now and we would have a lot more people liking Bush...so why didnt Bush do that if he did 9.11? I am not sure why u dont understand what i am saying.

Yeah you lost me the moment you tried to flame me and still continue. Winning of hearts and minds is not your cup of tea. Stick to your tiesto fan threads.

quote:

OK better yet....forget the WMD.. why didnt they plant evdidence that link Al-Qeada to Hussein in one of his palaces...then the wolrd would find the war was a legitimare attack on terror ...but they didnt and no one found much of anything...dont u see how silly it all is....he carried out 9.11 the biggest crime of all time against ones own people but couldnt plant some bullshit evidence? really come on.

Why not just lie that person x had or did something and invade their country. Oh wait deja vu all over again.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 again seek help little man...and i ask that you refrain from tlaking to me anymore...you make me fear for my safety and i am feeling compelled to call the authorities. Seek help...it will do you only good. Good luck with it all.

LOL you are such a big man, BIG man. What you can't stand is the fact that your wrong so your ego is showing that you don't like being proven wrong. Poor little boy.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Answer my question then i will entertain yours.

What is your question this time.

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e If any evidence had been found, people might then have turned around and just said "Oh, the US must have planted it".

you got it....people who buy into this crap are usually unstable to begin with and you really never will change their minds no matter how much rock solid evidence you give them.

Take a look at ogvh5150 and Psygnosis neither one has answered my question but just keep attacking me with other questions to divert attention...typical extremists crap...i bet they read Chomsky and Blumm....these types have no real opinion or back bones and beleive the whole world is controlled by evil money hungry mongrols only out to do the innocent man wrong...they beleive democracys (mainly America and ISrael) are evil while tyrants like Hussein are always docile and never i the wrong.

Stay away from them and leave debates with them when u find they dont answer questions straight forward after several attempts..which is what i will do if they answer mine soon.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Yeah you lost me the moment you tried to flame me and still continue. Winning of hearts and minds is not your cup of tea. Stick to your tiesto fan threads. Why not just lie that person x had or did something and invade their country. Oh wait deja vu all over again.

ok you refuse to answer...so inturn you make yourself look foolish and defeated...i am done with you...maybe Psygnosis will answer and further this debate.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid LOL you are such a big man, BIG man. What you can't stand is the fact that your wrong so your ego is showing that you don't like being proven wrong. Poor little boy.

Not at all...i will admit when i am wrong....but i ahve to be PROVED wrong on anything by any of you. When i am i willl gladly inform you and you can rant and rave about it.

Do you need some links on where to seek therapy? i am sure i can provide you with a few.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 What is your question this time.

You never answered any of them...forget it i am done.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 You never answered any of them...forget it i am done.

Don't run away. Ask the question. You claim I don't answer you but you're running off now.

Look man you're gonna be snowed in so you're in for the long haul.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Don't run away. Ask the question. You claim I don't answer you but you're running off now. Look man you're gonna be snowed in so you're in for the long haul.

you got that right...started already.

Go back and look for my questions...i beleive they were in my first post a few pages back..

And here is something for you:
Charles Ward, a former assistant of the leading Kennedy murder conspiracy theorist, Jim Garrison, described the way this method works as follows: "Garrison drew a conclusion and then organized the facts. And when the facts didn't fit, he liked to say that they'd been changed by the CIA."

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Go back and look for my questions...i beleive they were in my first post a few pages back..

Which is it? Questions or question?

You're just causing a circular argument if you want me to re-answer your questions. That is why I asked "what is your question" and "what is your question this time" clearly indictaing that I don't want to lose my place in your line of questioning.

But to entertain you:

quote:

quote: quote: Originally posted by tiesto14 why didnt they plant WMD in Iraq if they pulled of 9.11? Why would anyone want to plant WMD's in Iraq? quote: quote: Originally posted by tiesto14 Are you serious? I thought you were. quote: most consporacy theorists, if not ALL, beleive Bush had a part in 9.11 to go to war with Iraq Hanging out in the gay bar saying you're not gay. Good one kiddo. Not only are you trying to debunk theories you're actually listening to them. quote: ...cus eventually he would go after them after Afghanistan...so if they did that to eventually end up in iraq why didnt they plant them to save face? I am not trying to make a connection with Iraq, Afghanistan and 9/11. There have been operatives that have ties to those subjects at hand but you have to actually do some reading into field reports and dossiers to understand. If the connections come up it is not my doing. quote: And if you do not think it was to plant them in Iraq, which i would find odd since all the sites u get yolur info from all point at the reason, then why were they behind 9.11? for fun? Now you beg a different question...why were they involved for what purpose? If not Iraq? I never implied that WMDs needed or had been planted. Why plant WMD's when you can claim they had some, invade, find none and claim bad intelligence. Oh wait they did that already. This administration tried to tie Al-Qeada and Iraq together but recanted.

Where did you fail to get an answer?

quote:

Originally posted by Psygnosis If your little brain is so confident about this, show me some links thats proves this point or even slightly backs your dumbass ideas up?

This is the MAIN problem with you conspiracy theorists right now in this "debate";

Forget the damn world wide web for a moment. There is FAR more evidence out there anyway showing 9-11 for exactly what it was; An Al Queda attack.

The point that Tiesto is making is that once you take away the quotes, pictures and propaganda from either the "pro" OR the "con" websites on this issue, what you're STILL left with is the simple, basic, and insurmountable issue of common sense...which you are completely ignorring in favor of what? Twisted web pages? So you trust everything you read on the web? Well, if you do, then there is no arguing with THAT kind of "common sense".

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco This is the MAIN problem with you conspiracy theorists right now in this "debate"; Forget the damn world wide web for a moment. There is FAR more evdidence out there anyway showing 9-11 for exactly what it was; An Al Queda attack. The point that Tiesto is making is that once you take away the quotes, pictures and propaganda from either the "pro" OR the "con" websites on this issue, what you're STILL left with is the simple, basic, and insurmountable issue of common sense...which you are completely ignorring in favor of what? Twisted web pages? So you trust everything you read on the web? Well, if you do, then there is no arguing with THAT kind of "common sense".

OK so where are you getting your proof that Al Qeada did it?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco The point that Tiesto is making is that once you take away the quotes, pictures and propaganda from either the "pro" OR the "con" websites on this issue, what you're STILL left with is the simple, basic, and insurmountable issue of common sense...which you are completely ignorring in favor of what? Twisted web pages? So you trust everything you read on the web? Well, if you do, then there is no arguing with THAT kind of "common sense".

BINGO!!!!!
Thank You!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 OK so where are you getting your proof that Al Qeada did it?

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/n...1/11/wbin11.xml

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

In the footage, shot in the Afghan mountains at the end of October, a smiling bin Laden goes on to say that the World Trade Centre's twin towers were a "legitimate target" and the pilots who hijacked the planes were "blessed by Allah".

The killing of at least 4,537 people was justified, he claims, because they were "not civilians" but were working for the American system.

Bin Laden also makes a direct personal threat against Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, for the first time, and warns nations such as Australia, Germany and Japan to stay out of the conflict.

The video will form the centrepiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden, to be released this Wednesday.

The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members.

In the video, bin Laden says: "The Twin Towers were legitimate targets, they were supporting US economic power. These events were great by all measurement. What was destroyed were not only the towers, but the towers of morale in that country."

The hijackers were "blessed by Allah to destroy America's economic and military landmarks". He freely admits to being behind the attacks: "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents and this is legal religiously and logically."

In a contradictory section, however, bin Laden justifies killing the occupants of the Twin Towers because they were not civilians - Islam forbids the killing of innocent civilians even in a holy war.

He says: "The towers were supposed to be filled with supporters of the economical powers of the United States who are abusing the world. Those who talk about civilians should change their stand and reconsider their position. We are treating them like they treated us."

Bin Laden goes on to justify his entire terror campaign. "There are two types of terror, good and bad. What we are practising is good terror. We will not stop killing them and whoever supports them."

He directly threatens the lives of President Bush and Mr Blair. "Bush and Blair don't understand anything but the power of force. Every time they kill us, we kill them, so the balance of terror can be achieved." He also calls on all Muslims to join him. "It is the duty of every Muslim to fight. Killing Jews is top priority."

Bin Laden warns other nations to keep out of the conflict, implying that they could face terror attacks if they do not.

In the video, he also claims responsibility for an unspecified terrorist outrage in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which he claims was sparked by secret messages in one of his videos.

He admits for the first time using public pronouncements on video to whip up terrorism - a danger about which the British and American governments have warned broadcasters.

It is significant that throughout the video he uses the personal pronouns "I" and "we" to claim responsibility for the attacks. In the past, he has spoken of the attackers only in the third person.

Bin Laden has publicly issued four previous videos since September 11, always denying carrying out the atrocities.

He now claims to have access to nuclear and chemical weapons. Bin Laden made the claims on Friday night during an interview with the English language Pakistani newspaper Dawn.

He said: "If America used chemical or nuclear weapons against us, then we may retort with chemical and nuclear weapons. We have the weapons as deterrent."

Defence analysts dismissed these claims. They said that although bin Laden could have access to nuclear material through links with Pakistan or former Soviet republics, he was unlikely to have the technology to cause an explosion.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We know that he was looking for that capability. We believe he does not have it."

Emergency powers to imprison suspected international terrorists indefinitely using special closed courts will be announced this week. The measure, which will require exemption from human rights legislation, will be used to round up about 20 suspects hiding in Britain beyond the reach of existing laws.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 OK so where are you getting your proof that Al Qeada did it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates...n_10-29-04.html


October 29, 2004, 5:10pm EDT
BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

In September 2003, Al-Jazeera aired a tape of bin Laden with his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he mentions five Sept. 11 hijackers by name.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So you trust everything you read on the web?

teisto14:
Which is it? The net is full of facts or full of bunk?

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 teisto14: Which is it the net is full of facts or full of bunk?

I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat.

Big difference in the credentials...dont you agree?

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat. Big difference in the credentials...dont you agree?

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat. Big difference in the credentials...dont you agree?

You have a short attention span:

quote:

quote: How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes? Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse. Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft? Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event? Avoiding the hard questions (A Miami Herald dot com article)

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings

quote:

Motassadeq was first found guilty in February 2003 and jailed for the maximum 15 years on more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization in the world's first conviction in connection with September 11. But a retrial was ordered when a federal court in 2004 quashed the verdict on the grounds that US authorities had refused to allow the court to question top suspects from Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network in American custody. During the new trial, the court found there was no evidence to show that Motassadeq had been directly involved in the attacks in New York and Washington World's first Sept 11 convict released in Germany (Yahoo)

quote:

NEW YORK, Aug. 24, 1998 � At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback. And the fact that he is viewed as a hero by millions in the Islamic world proves again the old adage: Reap what you sow. Bin Laden comes home to roost His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story (MSNBC) In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, who was involved with the bombing conspiracy. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects. Salem asserted that the original FBI plan was to supply the plotters with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings. Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has never contradicted Salem's account. (1993) World Trade Center bombing (Wikipedia Article) The story begins in November 1990 when an Egyptian fundamentalist, El Sayid Nosair, shot and killed Meir Kahane, an extreme right-wing Israeli-American, in Manhattan. A year later, in November 1991, Nosair's trial became a cause celebre among local fundamentalists, who turned out in force to support their "martyr." Planted among them was an Egyptian, Emad Salem, working as an FBI informant, even as he maintained ties to Egyptian intelligence. In December, the jury returned a bizarre verdict, acquitting Nosair of murder and finding him guilty on lesser charges. An outraged judge gave Nosair a maximum sentence on those lesser charges, and sent him to Attica.... ....On June 21, an Iraqi living in Baghdad, Abdul Rahman Yasin (subsequently an indicted fugitive in the Trade Center bombing) appeared at the U.S. embassy in Amman asking for a U.S. passport. Born in America, Abdul Rahman received his passport, which he soon used to travel to this country. Just at this crucial point, unfortunately, the FBI lost track of the Nosair-Salameh conspiracy. It did not fully trust its informant, Emad Salem, and Salem's ties to Egyptian intelligence; the Bureau severed relations with him in early July when he refused to follow its procedures relating to criminal investigations. THE WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMB: Who is Ramzi Yousef? And Why It Matters (Federation of American Scientists)

quote:

Originally posted by Psygnosis If your little brain is so confident about this, show me some links thats proves this point or even slightly backs your dumbass ideas up?

You never really answered this guys' question. You did the very same thing you accused me and others of: avoiding the question without answering it:

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 Why must i show a link? It is common sense...orchestrate 9.11 a massive domestic attack to plant yourself in Iraq but only to make yourself hated by most of the world by not finding WMD...if that is such a hard concept for you to even consider then u have issues. Do you understand what i am saying....seriously think about it objectivly before you respond.

On with reliable sources but you never bothered to see where the links lead to when you hovered on them:

quote:

06/04/2002 - Updated 08:12 AM ET U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda By John Diamond, USA TODAY WASHINGTON � U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group, but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur, according to U.S. officials. The disclosures add to a growing body of evidence to be examined in congressional hearings that open today into how the CIA, FBI and other agencies failed to seize on intelligence pointing to the deadliest terror attack in U.S. history. Dispatches from agents who infiltrated al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. The operatives could not crack the tightly held secret of the Sept. 11 plot but helped underscore the lengths al-Qaeda was willing to go to inflict pain on the United States. U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda (USA Today) CIA official says agents have infiltrated Al Qaeda By Walter Pincus, Washington Post | July 24, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The CIA has intelligence agents inside Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network -- as it did before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- but they are not within the terrorist leader's inner circle where key information about any future attack would be discussed, a senior intelligence official said yesterday. CIA official says agents have infiltrated Al Qaeda (Boston dot com) CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July French report claims terrorist leader stayed in Dubai hospital Anthony Sampson Thursday November 1, 2001 Guardian Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro. The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere. Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA. The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards. Intelligence sources say that another CIA agent was also present; and that Bin Laden was also visited by Prince Turki al Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, who had long had links with the Taliban, and Bin Laden. Soon afterwards Turki resigned, and more recently he has publicly attacked him in an open letter: "You are a rotten seed, like the son of Noah". The American hospital in Dubai emphatically denied that Bin Laden was a patient there. Washington last night also denied the story. CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden in July (Guardian dot co dot uk)

Look theres a blizzard that going to keep you indoors at the pc for a few days. I suggest that you do some reading.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You never really answered this guys' question. You did the very same thing you accused me and others of: avoiding the question without answering it:

Which question? And when did i do this to you?

I might have not seen it, i dunno.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 OK so where are you getting your proof that Al Qeada did it?

Um, do you not read newspapers? Watch International News outlets like the BBC and CNN? Shit, even Al Jazeera probabaly never disputed Bin Laden's role in 9-11.

Dude, come on, you must just be doing this as a gag or something now...nobody can be THIS deaf, dumb and blind.

quote:

Originally posted by tiesto14 I posted direct QUOTES from Bin Laden which i find to be legitamate sources...you however post videos and sites compiled by weirdos with no jobs who think there are black helicopters outside their house on whisper mode while they wear their tinfoil hat.

Ouch.

quote:

Originally posted by Psygnosis Which question? And when did i do this to you? I might have not seen it, i dunno.

Not you but teisto14.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Um, do you not read newspapers? Watch International News outlets like the BBC and CNN? Shit, even Al Jazeera probabaly never disputed Bin Laden's role in 9-11. Dude, come on, you must just be doing this as a gag or something now...nobody can be THIS deaf, dumb and blind.

So you believe everything the media tells you?

They told you that Saddam had WMDs.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

Imagine the perps sitting around the planning table.

�We�ll have planes fly into the WTC towers,� one of them says. �We�ll make it look like fires brought the buildings down.�

�No good!� another one cries. �Steel buildings have never been brought down by fires. People would see this anomaly, & we�d be busted.�

End of conspiracy. You see? The plan as you imagine it would never have gotten off the drawing board.


Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that 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.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it?

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

Disgraceful to say the least. On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted NORAD of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...html?page=3&c=y

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Look theres a blizzard that going to keep you indoors at the pc for a few days. I suggest that you do some reading.

i answered enough...time for you to answer mine....

1. Why would 9.11 be an inside job?
2. What would they gain from doing 9.11?

I refuse to answer anything else without the above questions answered...because without a motive u have no case...and if you say oil in Iraq becareful with the planted evidence question i will asking you....because again if it was for oil then why not plany evidence to make it rock solid.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 So you believe everything the media tells you? They told you that Saddam had WMDs.

The media didnt tell me that...i knew that since the 1990s...but George Bush and John Kerry reminded me of it.

And look at you slapping me in the face with the new internet debaters jargon "u beleive everything the medis tells me" crap...come on such a lame attack. You do realize you are using the internet right? and EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE you get your information from, be it pro or con your cause, is all MEDIA you twit. Every website with information on a topic is MEDIA. Another typical attack my conspiracy theorists...a lame one at that.

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