5 of 6
5
Another look at 9/11
Posted: 10 July 2007 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
daybrown - 07 July 2007 06:04 PM

When you look at all the previous events setup by the Jihadim, 911 stands far above any in the degree of sophisticated organization. They had already bombed several structures in this effort to kill Americans, but the detonations were so badly timed that only local people were injured.

And since then, while the Jihadim in Europe have certainly killed and injured a lotta people there has also been a lot of remarkable snafus. As Zogby in an interview with a terrorist expert put it, “how could the gang that couldnt shoot straight, pull off something as complex as 911?”

These boys are not too smart…

Translation: “Them thar A-Rabs ain’t smart enough what for to learn to fly an aero-plane.  Only white Americans are smart enough do that.” 

The slow ratcheting up of Islamic-fascist attacks against the West and the United States over the past 20 years shows an increased level of sophistication and deadliness with each attack.  Just because someone is a religious fanatic does not mean they are not sophisticated and intelligent in a wide range of areas. 

The reason they were able to get away with the attacks as well as they did was not only due to their intelligence and planning, but also because the government and most private citizens were asleep at the wheel.  And in the case of the government, they knew no real specifics at all, plus I doubt there was much they could have done before the 9/11 attacks to stop them without outraging many Americans in the process.  In most criminal situations, the majority of people will freeze up and do nothing waiting for someone else (usually law enforcement) to come in and do something.  Even the airlines had a policy of “Don’t fight hijackers.”  I’m sure the 9/11 hijackers knew these facts and took full advantage of them.  Only when the passengers of the 4th plane found out through cell phone calls what was happening, that they realized not only was no law enforcement agency going to to save them, but that they had noting to lose by fighting back.  The one thing the hijackers didn’t think about was cell phones.  If not for those phones, then the passengers on the 4th plane would have been in the dark like the passengers on the other planes. 

daybrown - 07 July 2007 06:04 PM

I find it noteworthy that after all this debate all these years, the system has not been able to convene a legal proceeding to settle 911 in a more credible way. The fact that they have not lends credence to those who are saying that the government is trying to hide the truth. Its not like we have not seen the government lie before.

So on the one hand you don’t trust the government.  But on the other hand you want this same government to put on trial all the parties involved and then you would (apparently?) trust what the government says? 

Besides, there have been legal proceedings against al-Q’aida members.  Haven’t you been paying attention to the news over all the uproar over military tribunals vs. civilian courts?

[ Edited: 10 July 2007 11:41 AM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 01:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Rocinante - 07 July 2007 03:30 PM
psikeyhackr - 07 July 2007 01:52 PM

The fire was fed and intensified by all the combustible material inside the buildings (rugs, curtains, furniture and paper, etc.) with pockets of fire reaching 1832°F.

Would you be so kind as to provide the source for that temperature.  The NIST doesn’t claim to have any steel where metallurgical analysis indicated that it reached that temperature.

psik

The Editors of Popular Science quoted the number from NIST. 

OK, I’ve provided you with the source for that temp. 

The number sequence 1 8 3 2 only appears once in the entire NIST report.

It appears in this report http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-4B.pdf  on page 193.

The actual number is 0.1832 and has something to do with the water sprinkler system so you will have to look somewhere else to justify that temperature in the actual fire.  That number corresponds with 1000 Celsius and 1000 appears in the reports 840 times and many are not temperatures and many are just references on tables and graphs.  So far I haven’t found them specify evidence to prove that happened in the real fire.  They built and burned some test cubicles where they got to that temperature a few times, but that was air temperature not steel temperature.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 11:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
psikeyhackr - 14 July 2007 01:14 AM

The number sequence 1 8 3 2 only appears once in the entire NIST report.

It appears in this report http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-4B.pdf  on page 193.

The actual number is 0.1832 and has something to do with the water sprinkler system so you will have to look somewhere else to justify that temperature in the actual fire.

I guess that just proves that myself, along with the editors of Popular Science and NIST are all part of the massive conspiracy that you imply existed to bring down the WTC buildings.  rolleyes 

But the 1832 number is not the point.  No one ever said it got to 2750°F to “melt” steel.  The steel only had to be weakened combined with the damage to the structure when the plane slammed into it, combined with the massive weight from the top of the building above the damaged areas.  The end result is the collapse of the buildings.  End of story. 

Are you ever going to state just exactly who you think did it, why they did it and how they did, or do you just like to throw your irresponsible written bombs without backing them up with the courage of your <STRIKE>convictions</STRIKE> conspiracy? 

psikeyhackr - 14 July 2007 01:14 AM

...but that was air temperature not steel temperature.

psik

Try this experiment:

You are making a pizza.  You preheat the oven to 425°F.  When you have finished making the dough and adding all the toppings, you open the oven and you put the pizza in it.  Your hand touches the 425°F air without a problem, but you instinctively know to never touch the same 425°F metal rack on which you are placing the pizza!  Why?  They are both the same temperature.  The reason is that metals are good conductors of heat and have low specific heats. That means that they gain heat quickly as they increase their temperature.

Give it up man.  You can’t win this one.  The buildings collapsed because some pissed-off Muslims purposely crashed nearly fully fueled planes into them as fast as they could!

[ Edited: 14 July 2007 11:11 AM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

I guess that just proves that myself, along with the editors of Popular Science and NIST are all part of the massive conspiracy that you imply existed to bring down the WTC buildings.  rolleyes

It proves you accept the word of sources you don’t check.  Not very intellectually impressive.  I don’t debate on the basis of psychological bullsh!t games.  Why don’t you stick to real facts and actually research them?

The reason is that metals are good conductors of heat and have low specific heats. That means that they gain heat quickly as they increase their temperature.

Inaccurate interpretation of the facts.  They hold a lot of heat energy for their temperature that doesn’t mean they gain it quickly.  They are good conductors so they will conduct heat away from the source.  That rack in the oven is not 30 feet long, it is entirely contained within the heat source and cannot conduct it away thereby keeping its temperature down.  It sounds to me like you are rationalizing what you already believe.

How long did it take to heat the oven?  How many tons of steel were on the 79th, 80th and 81st floors of the south tower?  It collapsed in 56 minutes.  Why can’t your experts tell you how many tons of steel had to turn to licorice after SIX YEARS since 9/11?  Why can’t they tell you how much steel was there since the building was designed in the 60’s?

Have you found actual evidence of temperatures yourself mentioned in the NIST reports?  Link us to the report and tell us the page.  LOL

psik

[ Edited: 14 July 2007 01:25 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 02:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
psikeyhackr - 14 July 2007 01:19 PM

I don’t debate on the basis of psychological bullsh!t games. 

psik

You don’t debate at all.  You have consistently refused to answer the questions of WHO, HOW and WHY.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20

It doesn’t matter whether or not I can find the original architectural blueprints for the WTC Towers indicating how much steel was used down to the ounce.  You have already made up your mind on an a priori basis that a conspiracy beyond the core of Arab Islamic-fascists who actually planned and carried out the attacks was somehow responsible for the collapse of the buildings.  Just exactly who it was, how they did it, or why they did it you are unable or unwilling to say. 

Since you won’t answer those obvious questions, let’s see if you answer any of these:


Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald alone shot and killed President John F. Kennedy?

Do you believe that the United States government is holding crashed alien craft and its dead occupants?

Do you believe that Vince Foster was murdered?

Do you believe that human beings landed on the Moon?

Do you believe that anyone set explosive charges in the levees in New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina? 

Do you believe that any group (private of government) is purposely keeping so-called water burning engines off the market?

Do you believe that George W. Bush stole either U.S. national election in which he was running for president? 

Do you believe that the white trails behind high flying jets in the sky are secret government projects?

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

But the 1832 number is not the point.  No one ever said it got to 2750°F to “melt” steel.  The steel only had to be weakened combined with the damage to the structure when the plane slammed into it, combined with the massive weight from the top of the building above the damaged areas.  The end result is the collapse of the buildings.  End of story.

You don’t debate at all.  You have consistently refused to answer the questions of WHO, HOW and WHY.

You’re absolutely right, I never said anything about melting steel.  Apparently you want to operate in an emotional association mode with me but putting me in your “conspiracy theorist box” and then you want to get bent out of shape because I don’t fit.  But the temperatures and their duration is relevant to what happened to the steel.

It is obvious you ended the story because you believed the plane could produce those effects.  I was trying to understand how the plane could possibly do that on 9/11.  I was standing in my living room watching the replays not believing the plane could do it.  This crap about the weight is ridiculous because the building was built stronger further down.  Every skyscraper must be built that way.  If the experts told us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor this would make it obvious.

I am talking about HOW the building collapsed.  Considering that the building and the plane are such mature technologies it should not be a debate.  This should be a simple problem.  It is absurd to me that people can believe the plane could have brought it down.  Your not checking the NIST report yourself tells me you aren’t really serious.  If you want to get pissed off over my not concentrating on the junk you expect me to, so be it.

Oswald and the moon have nothing whatsoever to do with this.  Bringing that up is just more of your psychological bullsh!t.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
psikeyhackr - 14 July 2007 04:25 PM

Oswald and the moon have nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Actually they do.  I was trying to get an insight into the mind of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist insofar as how that same mind relates to other famous conspiracy theories.  I had a feeling you wouldn’t answer any of those questions either.  Oh well. 

psikeyhackr - 14 July 2007 04:25 PM

Bringing that up is just more of your psychological bullsh!t.

I guess you are tired of all the psychological BS you must put up with from your shrinks at the Institute where you are confined.  Tell your doctors to double your medication as the current dose doesn’t seem to be working.  LOL

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1071
Joined  2007-06-20
psikeyhackr - 14 July 2007 01:19 PM

Why can’t they tell you how much steel was there since the building was designed in the 60’s?
psik

Amount of structural steel used in WTC: 200,000 tons.
—Source Twin Towers: The Life of New York City’s World Trade Center, by Angus Kress Gillespie. Rutgers University Press, 1999


Weight of each tower: 500,000 tons
—Source NOVA/WGBH Educational Foundation

Let’s see what excuse you come up with now.

 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2007 08:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05

You have this obvious ability to ignore my comments about tons of steel and tons of concrete ON EACH FLOOR.

Maybe you should check with your heroes at Popular Science.

The morons at NIST couldn’t come up with that info in 3 years even though they took $20,000,000 of taxpayers money to produce 11,300 pages.

If you search the NIST reports for the word oscillation you will find they talk about the “natural frequency of oscillation” of the building.  They say the building vibrated for about 4 minutes after being hit by the plane.  The quantity and distributions of steel and concrete would affect that frequency.  Engineers were doing tests on the sway of the buildings in 1991 with accelerometers on the top floor.

I guess you need to pretend you understand psychology since you can’t deal with the physics.

psik

[ Edited: 15 July 2007 01:29 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2007 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

This is what always happens when people can’t argue facts.  They resort to derogatory remarks about their opponents and go off on tangents, like “if it wasn’t Osama then who was it!?”  when really, that question has nothing to do with the physics of the collapse nor do JFK or Buzz Aldrin.

Point is:  even if the steel was significantly weakened, the floors would come down in a pancaking effect, gradually losing speed as each floor slammed into the next one which would leave a rather large stack of concrete, steel frames and other debris standing in the air.  The fact that all three WTC buildings fell at near free-fall speeds and that nothing remained standing means that every single floor fell simultaneously and pulverized before hitting the floor.  Also, unless the heat from the jet fuel was perfectly distributed throughout the buildings, the towers would have fallen towards their weakest sides but they didn’t; as we all know, they fell straight down a la controlled demolition.

Remember, these are not my ideas, but are conclusions made by hundreds of scientists around the world.

Really, it is not that hard to figure out if you are willing to put in the time.  And resorting to childish epithets of “conspiracy theorists” will not win you the argument no matter how many times you say it.

The flaws in the NIST report and the 911 Commission Report are numerous.  Check out Dr. David Ray Griffin’s books Debunking 911 Debunkers and 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions if you like.  Two of the many hundreds of books detailing the 911 hoax. 

Again, I understand that this stuff seems wacky on the surface and is at times, very hard to believe, but the science is there.

One quick way to figure 911 out is to research the collapse of WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane.

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2007 04:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

As I have stated a few times in posts on this subject, I spent several months researching this when my brother began challenging the so called main stream version of the 9/11 events.

Many wild goose chases led me to incredible claims based on little or no fact, but plenty of speculation.  Finally, I began responding by simply challenging the source of the claims rather than the claims themselves.  I did this because I discovered patterns in the types of people making these claims.

My brother (with the assistance of his wife) evolved a Libertarian point of view with strong religious (christian) and sometimes racist influences.  This happened over the course of several years.  Most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories seem to come from people with one or more of these influences.

The Libertarian anti-government stance is taken to the extreme.  I believe there are many ultra conservative folks out there that feel betrayed by G.W Bush and Co.  The small government, christian nation that was envisioned and some think promised by this administration has failed to materialize.

I don’t pretend to understand all their motives, nor do I believe they are working together as one.  But I do think there are threads that links them.

In the case of Dr. David Ray Griffin’s and his books.  Dr. David Ray Griffin has developed and expanded the works of Alfred North Whitehead on the ideas of Process Theology. He is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. Many of Griffin’s writings are devoted to developing postmodern proposals for overcoming the conflicts between religion and modern science.

Since his retirement, he has moved his focus from questions of philosophy and religion to one of politics and, specifically, questioning the 9/11 attacks.

The Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, publishers of Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, noted that Griffin is a distinguished theologian, and praised the book’s religious content, but said, “The board believes the conspiracy theory is spurious and based on questionable research. See Here

While I could spend time reading and distilling the information in his books, I don’t think I will.  I have been down this path before only to discover that the facts behind the claims were skewed, out of context, or outright lies.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2007 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  67
Joined  2007-07-17

Well put, Charles.  It is definitely true that anti-Zionists and other extremists have jumped on the 911 Truth bandwagon and that a lot of the claims floating around out there are outlandish attempts to slander one group or another.  But to discredit someone like David Ray Griffin who has put in thousands of hours of research time and written three books on the topic simply because he is a theologian and not a physicist is a little, how shall we say, academically prejudice, don’t you think?  Most of his research has to do with locating contradictions in the official story and examining mainstream publications and press releases for evidence of government foreknowledge of the attacks.  All scientific research that he quotes in his books are meticulously sourced and are taken from either government sources or from research done by reputable scientists around the world.  He makes no claims that are not founded in data.  For example, how on earth did the BBC report on the collapse of the Salomon Building 23 minutes before it happened? 

Check it out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

Notice that WTC 7 is standing in the background just behind the reporters right shoulder.  Oddly enough, her connection with BBC is cut 5 minutes before the actual collapse occurs.

 Signature 

“We are all happy; if we only knew it.”
- Fyodor Dostoevsky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2007 05:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01
baffledking - 19 July 2007 05:31 PM

But to discredit someone like David Ray Griffin who has put in thousands of hours of research time and written three books on the topic simply because he is a theologian and not a physicist is a little, how shall we say, academically prejudice, don’t you think?  Most of his research has to do with locating contradictions in the official story and examining mainstream publications and press releases for evidence of government foreknowledge of the attacks.  All scientific research that he quotes in his books are meticulously sourced and are taken from either government sources or from research done by reputable scientists around the world.  He makes no claims that are not founded in data.

Baffled, although his academic past did factor into my thinking, the fact that the publisher of 2 of his books stood behind the religious content of those books they distance themselves from the 9/11 conspiracy content….
[quote author=“charles”]
The Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, publishers of Griffin’s Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, noted that Griffin is a distinguished theologian, and praised the book’s religious content, but said, “The board believes the conspiracy theory is spurious and based on questionable research.

The research that was noted to be “questionable” , by the publishers of his books.  I don’t discredit him on the basis that he is not a physicist.  Nor do I question his sources.  How he gathered the material he used to prop up his theories, is not the issue. As it has been with all the material I have read to date, is how it is pieced together, and the fabrications between the facts, that lead to his conclusions that fail skeptical scrutiny.

I have not read his books, but I have read and listened to many accounts like his.  I fail to see how his background gives him any credibility in examining the 9/11 event.  Don’t point to his sources.  I could claim
sources that many would find credible, but it would not make me an expert.

What, in his experience, makes him an expert of any significance?

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2007 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  178
Joined  2007-06-01

Extracted from a Summary of “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11” on Amazon

In Chapter 7 he first shows how the U.S. Empire is remarkably similar to the Roman Empire of 2000 years ago in its sense of divine authorization, its overwhelming military power, its use of terror to intimidate, its use of puppet rulers in countries under its control, and its exaction of “tribute and taxation” from subordinate populations. He then shows that Jesus of Nazareth, the central historical personage for Christians to this day, was the founder of an “anti-imperial gospel” that called upon his compatriots to resist the oppression and idolatry of the Roman Empire.

In Chapter 8 Griffin brings his many decades of philosophical and theological work on the nature of evil to attempt an explanation of the magnitude of the evil we face. He presents a concept of the “demonic” as a social force which has risen to a level capable of thwarting “divine” intentions for the world. The chapter is profound and rewarding, illuminating deep issues that are difficult to penetrate.

In Chapter 9 Griffin demonstrates the the American Empire exemplifies the most highly developed demonic force in the world today, and that 9/11 can only be understood from this perspective.

Finally, in Chapter 10, Griffin addresses fellow Christians directly, asking what “the church” can do to resist today’s “Roman Empire”. He concludes with suggestions for how Christian churches could engage with the demonic power of the American Empire and fight back, as Jesus clearly exhorted them to do.

Clearly these chapters are not an account of historical facts at all.  They are one man’s Christian idealogical view of the 9/11 events and the actions of the US government.

 Signature 

“Life is a Blur of Republicans and Meat” - Zippy

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5