9/11

[Drea]

The NWO loves you MAN! *group hug*

They wish everyone were more like you -- "keep yer head down and don't ask any questions!"

[Canadian Blue]

The NWO loves you MAN! *group hug*

They wish everyone were more like you -- "keep yer head down and don't ask any questions!"

The mental health clinic loves all of thoughs with mean world syndrome as well...

[kimmy]

kimmy:Hawkins cites would be able to convert the passenger cabins of jetliners into the combustion chambers of these sophisticated engines... without any modifications that were noticeable to the passengers.

He was describing how the explosive would work and what the shockwave would do and how it matches the evidence. I think you misunderstood.

So, he's actually just saying that Cascade Aerospace jammed the cabin full of hidden explosives? And all the talk about "pulse jet engines" was just a bunch of pseudoscience thrown in to confuse the uniformed and gullible? Ok, I suppose that could be the case.

Whichever the case, his article makes ridiculous claims.

-airliners packed full of explosives would not "operate as Pulse Detonation Engines".

-detonating these explosives would not "generate a strong electromagnetic pulse".

Like, either he's a flat out liar trying to deceive people who are too ignorant to know that what he's saying is pure crap, or else he himself is too ignorant to know that what he's saying is pure crap.

Either he's a liar, or an idiot. Either way, why would I put any faith in any other scientific claims he makes?

I know what a pulse jet is.

And yet his article sounded reasonable to you?

What do you think of wtc7 collapse ? As a person witha degree of techincal sophistication I would like to hear how you think a building could collapse by accident yet look like a controlled demolition in every way.

I'm not a person with a degree of technical sophistication. I'm a waitress. (if I was in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I would describe my occupation as "Logistics and Deployment Expert", but that's beside the point.)

I'm just a highschool graduate who reads stuff. That's all. I have enough general knowledge to know that planes packed with conventional explosives wouldn't create an EMP. I have enough general knowledge to know that the lady comparing the Twin Towers to tall trees with Keebler Elf homes carved into the sides is being utterly dishonest.

But I'm afraid I don't have detailed information about what damage was actually done to WTC7 (nor do you.)

And I don't have the specialized knowledge to know what effect that damage would have on WTC7 (nor do you.)

I don't know enough about the collapse of WTC7 to form a definite opinion of why it came down. I will agree that of all the stuff that happened on Sept 11, 2001, it is the thing that seems most unlikely on the surface.

But why are you changing the subject? You guys have been talking about this "mountain of evidence", but whenever somebody presses you on it, it's always back to WTC7. You were advancing David Hawkins' theory about insulation that burns at 5000 degrees, and when we look at the guy and discover he's a kook, it's "well what about WTC7? huh?" I can't be certain of what caused WTC7 to fall, but what does that have to do with David Hawkins? WTC7 seems unexplained, so jetliners packed with explosives can operate as pulse-jets and create EMPs? Sorry, that doesn't follow.

Even though I can't be certain of what happened at WTC7, that doesn't add any credibility to theories about airliners turned into Pulse-jets, or space-stations with ray-guns, or nuclear bombs that dustify steel and concrete instead of exploding, or insulation that burns at 5,000 degrees, or the Latino KKK destroying the Twin Towers by driving nuclear-armed low-riders into the parkade, or Keebler Elves taking up residence in the sides of the towers.

If there's a "mountain of evidence", then each piece of evidence has to stand up.

The fact that WTC7 seems unexplained does not make the rest of this supposed evidence valid.

-k

[kimmy]

kimmy:it is worth noting that KBR has held the same contract since 2000, and hasn't actually even built anything.

How do you know that ?

The NY Times article mentions that the contract specifies these emergency detention centers are not actually built except in case of emergency. The article cites the New Orleans evacuation as one instance where the contract actually came into play, as KBR built emergency accommodations for some of the evacuees. The article talks to politicians grumbling about not getting much for the taxpayer's money.

But, I suppose, you could be of the view that KBR actually has been building these facilities, but doing so in secret. But why?

You and your fellow Movementarians have started with a hypothesis (that there are death-camps) and gone looking for evidence to support it (a hefty contract for a Halliburton subsidiary.)

Is that in the spirit of scientific inquiry? No, it is not. Scientific inquiry starts with observable evidence (say, a hefty contract for a Halliburton subsidiary) and forms a hypothesis that seems to fit the observations.

What did KBR actually do with the money that they were given under the last detention center contract? Some of it was spent on facilities for Hurricane Katrina evacuees. The rest went somewhere else. But where? To me, the most likely explanation is: "into the pockets of Halliburton stakeholders."

Obviously there could be other explanations as well. But what reason is there to assume "death camps" as being the most likely? None, except for the preconceived belief that the government is building death-camps.

Is there any actual evidence of any of these "death camps"? Even one? (are you going to show me the video where a cameraman walks around an empty rail-yard and the narrator explains how the ventilation fans on this building are for a gas-chamber, and the chimneys on that building are for mass cremation furnaces? Because that was quite funny.)

Or, let's approach it from another angle. Suppose you were a member of a secret conspiracy and you were in charge of building death camps. How would you finance it? You've got access to literally trillions of dollars, and cost of constructing these camps would be pocket change. Do you tap into your secret reserves? Or set up some sort of elaborate money laundering ruse that gets the money to KBR? Or would you instead finance your "death camps" through a government contract that's approved through Congress and reported on by mainstream media and labeled as "detention facilities"? If you were a secret conspiracy, which would you do?

You guys have started with the belief that the government has plans to exterminate large numbers of citizens, and worked backwards. That's not how real inquiry works. Someone starting with your evidence and working forwards wouldn't arrive at your conclusion without that preconceived belief.

BTW: wrt mass exterminations, people in the conservative party have admitted it to me. I have known about these plans before Alex Jones even knew because someone came out in the early 90's about Rhodes Scholarships and the New World Order plans. It wasn't supposed to happen until 2040 but Bush & Harper & Martin wanted to speed it up.

Forgive me for finding this situation hard to believe.

You have connections with the handful of elite Conservative Party insiders who would be aware of such a plan? And they just casually mention it when people ask? I'm sorry, but you do realize that this sounds completely ridiculous, right?

Rhodes Scholarships are part of a NWO plot? When did this come out? Where can I read more about this?

-k

[White Doors]

This is my favourite thread.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:The mental health clinic loves all of thoughs with mean world syndrome as well...

I actually went and talked to a few doctors to make sure I wasn't crazy a few years ago after 911. I believe that we now live in a culture of corruption and that most of the beaurocrats that one may deal with can probably be bought off or paid off in one form or another. They certainly don't mind their colleagues commiting serious federal crimes.

I've got a clean bill of health mentally, I've even done computer based quizes that diagnose your sanity with questions. I spent 4 hours ona terminal answering questions. The results came back as very sane on all 30 ish parameters.

Perhaps you should do the same thing - one cannot judge ones own level of mental fitness. Personally I think you are dullusional because you do not have evidence to support the beliefs you defend so rigorously.

[PolyNewbie]

kimmy: I have enough general knowledge to know that planes packed with conventional explosives wouldn't create an EMP.

I'm an engineering grad who did very well in electromagnetic theory. I am not convinced that is pulse EMP engines would not create an electromagnetic pulse because I am not a high energy physicist. You do not have enough scientific knowledge to be humbled by the topic and assume that you know everything. Many posters on this thread are afflicted by this danger of having a little bit of knowledge.

[Riverwind]

I'm an engineering grad who did very well in electromagnetic theory. I am not convinced that is pulse EMP engines would not create an electromagnetic pulse because I am not a high energy physicist.

You are an embarassment to engineers everywhere. Kimmy may be a waitress at this time but she has a better grasp on basic engineering concepts than you do. She also has a better grasp on the basic prinicpals of logic than you do to. In fact, I wonder if you really completed a degree in engineering. I can believe you actually started the course because you know about some of the concepts but there is a big difference between starting a degres and actually finishing it.

[Drea]

Please folks.. if you read only one article about 911...read this one:

The Destruction of the World Trade Center - Why the Official Story Can't Be True

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

For pete sake -- read, think, listen, ask!

[White Doors]

Name me a building where a fully fueled passenger jetliner crashed into it at 500 mph...

for pete's sake people - use your heads!

[Riverwind]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

NIST does not claim that fire alone caused the steel frame buildings to collapse. The NIST says that structural damage from the plane impact weakened the buildings to the point that the fires triggered the collapse. IOW - the author of that article is basing his entire argument on incorrect facts which makes all of his conclusions and assertions irrelevant.

Ask yourself this question: how many steel frame buildings prior to 9/11 caught fire after being hit by planes? The answer is 0. That means that it is impossible to make any assumptions about what should and should not happen based on prior experience.

[Drea]

Name me a building where a fully fueled passenger jetliner crashed into it at 500 mph...

for pete's sake people - use your heads!

you did not read the link

typical

[Drea]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

NIST does not claim that fire alone caused the steel frame buildings to collapse. The NIST says that structural damage from the plane impact weakened the buildings to the point that the fires triggered the collapse. IOW - the author of that article is basing his entire argument on incorrect facts which makes all of his conclusions and assertions irrelevant.

Ask yourself this question: how many steel frame buildings prior to 9/11 caught fire after being hit by planes? The answer is 0. That means that it is impossible to make any assumptions about what should and should not happen based on prior experience.

you did not read the link either.... I regret putting these the two paragraphs here because you naysayers will read ONLY that.

Typical head in the sand mentality.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:NIST does not claim that fire alone caused the steel frame buildings to collapse. The NIST says that structural damage from the plane impact weakened the buildings to the point that the fires triggered the collapse.

The problem with the damagae and heat theory is that the buildings were built witha 20 times overbuild factor on the outside and a 6 times overbuild factor on the core. Take away a quarter of the supports and cut the remaining strength in half because of the heat and you still have more than enough strength for the building to remain standing after the accident. Add this to the fact that the natural frequency of vibration did not change after the accident and the official version of how the buildings collapsed loses all credibility.

*The overbuild factors were taken from a paper accepted by the American Society Of Civil Engineers. Hoffman also talks about the overbuild factors on his site.

[Wilber]

GE financed a movie 'United 93' which implies that the 9/11 passengers wrestled

the Boeing 757 into the ground. The flickerng lights, multiple debris fields

and the shape of the empty (!) impact crater in the field outside Shanksville,

Pa., however, are more easily explained by United 93's tail being blown off,

blown back and blown over to land 'tail first' in the ground before the

aluminum and plastic parts and United 93's black box are consumed by unburnt

incendiaries from a GE Pulse Detonation Engine set up in the cabin.

Any accident investigator could have told this guy that when aircraft pull too much G the first failure is the tail section. The horizontal stabilizers fail, the tail is unloaded and the aircraft flips over on its back often resulting in one or both wings failing in negative G. This is the classic result when a non instrument rated pilot finds himself in cloud, becomes disoriented and winds up in a spiral dive. He pulls too much G trying to correct for the rapidly rising speed and the tail fails. If United 93 had been in an uncontrolled dive and someone was trying to recover, the failed tail is entirely consistent with this situation. It would have taken a skilled pilot familiar with heavy jet aircraft to recover without causing a structural failure, if it was possible at all.

[Riverwind]

Take away a quarter of the supports and cut the remaining strength in half because of the heat and you still have more than enough strength for the building to remain standing after the accident.

The strength of a structure is not simply measured by the number of supports standing. Once some supports start collapse the additional load placed on other supports can cause them to fail as well. In the case of the WTC towers, NIST explains that the when the floors buckled they pulled the perimeter supports inwards - this weakened them even though they were not damaged by the initial impact. The floors would not have buckled if there was only a fire - the floors on buckled because many supports were knocked out by the plane and the protective insulation was knocked off.

IOW: if it was just a plane crash the buildings would not have collapsed. if it was just a fire the buildings would not have collapsed either. it was the combination of the plane crash and fire that triggered the collapse.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:it was the combination of the plane crash and fire that triggered the collapse.

Thats what they say but it isn't really possible. I wasn't talking about floor joists - I was talking about vertical load bearing beams. I'm not argueing physics with you. You do not know any more about physics than you do about banking. You are just a silly nut that speaks from his rectum all the time. Really - go away and learn something about what you talk about. You are the biggest fool I have ever seen on here.

The Easter Bunny isn't real either.

[Black Dog]

I'm an engineering grad who did very well in electromagnetic theory. I am not convinced that is pulse EMP engines would not create an electromagnetic pulse because I am not a high energy physicist. You do not have enough scientific knowledge to be humbled by the topic and assume that you know everything. Many posters on this thread are afflicted by this danger of having a little bit of knowledge.

Well, you're certainly in no danger of having a little bit of knowlege. There's no such thing as "pulse EMP engines" for starters. Second: you don't need any scientific accreditation to realize how stupid the idea that pulse jet engines could cause an EMP is. You just to spend 10 minutes on wikipedia. The only thing pulse jet engines have in common with an electromagnetic pulse is that they both contain the word "pulse." But then, so does the settings on my blender.

RW:

You are an embarassment to engineers everywhere. Kimmy may be a waitress at this time but she has a better grasp on basic engineering concepts than you do. She also has a better grasp on the basic prinicpals of logic than you do to. In fact, I wonder if you really completed a degree in engineering. I can believe you actually started the course because you know about some of the concepts but there is a big difference between starting a degres and actually finishing it.

I don't think PN is an engineer. If he is, he's accredited from the Engineering Department of the Correspondance School of the Cayman Islands. And the best part is, his degree only cost him $35 (not including shipping and handling).

I simply can't believe someone with such a rudimentary grasp of the English language and basic scientific concepts (such as, say, the difference between pulse jet engines and electromagnetic pulses) could have any type of higher education under his belt.

Note, too, how PN responded to kimmy's thourough posts: he brushed by them and zeroed in on kimmy's honest, but totally irrelevant, admission of qualifications. In other words: he ignored the argument and went straight for the person making it. This from the character who whines incessantly when people mock his self-evidently kooky beliefs.

[Canadian Blue]

This debate is really just becoming more irritating to read. We have the 9/11 revisionists come on and all they provide is some youtube videos and sites from people that have no expertise in civil engineering.

It's telling that the ASCE, and the vast majority of the international civil engineering community disagrees with the 9/11 revisionists. However the response is always that they were "paid off" or that they are "in on it". That's the reason why this debate has gone on for so long because very few people like to listen to what the actual experts have to say, and want to believe that this is just like the movie Conspiracy Theory.

Then the people who provide the expert evidence are called Bush apologists, fascists, whatever. It's really an innane debate, and most of the world with the exception of the few places were a majority of people believe in 9/11 truth, right alongside the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, don't buy into this theory.

BTW: Don't provide one of those polls that says a majority believe 9/11 could have been prevented, this is no indication that people believe the government did it.

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:This debate is really just becoming more irritating to read. We have the 9/11 revisionists come on and all they provide is some youtube videos and sites from people that have no expertise in civil engineering.

Building construction and design is not what happened on 911. What happened on 911 is not studied by civil engineers. There are plenty of engineers, civil and otherwise that think 911 was an inside job. If thats not enough then you can look at all tyhe seemingly impossible coincidences around 911.

You, on the other hand, have absolutely *no evidence* to support your claims than Bin Laden did it from a cave in Afghanistan.

You shouldn't lie and say the majority of civil engineers support the official version of 911. I suspect that many of them simply will not look at the collapse of wtc 7 because its obvious. Even the FEMA report says the official investigation has a very low probability of being true.

The NIST report was directed by a Pentagon propogandist, not engineers.

[Canadian Blue]

Building construction and design is not what happened on 911. What happened on 911 is not studied by civil engineers. There are plenty of engineers, civil and otherwise that think 911 was an inside job. If thats not enough then you can look at all tyhe seemingly impossible coincidences around 911.

So people who specialize in structural engineering, and designing buildings have no clue in how a building actually works.

There really aren't plenty, since you have only provided Alex Jones, a Philosophy professor, and a physicist. Meanwhile the ASCE, MIT, the University of Sydney, and the Scientific American, all refute the 9/11 revisionists.

[BayLee]

In reality I seriously doubt that the American government planned 9/11.

They reserve that for planning murder usually in South American and middle east countries.

But in reality,the bush and his rice were certainly aware 9/11 was going to happen.

The rice saying previously she had never heard of al-quida ( if thas is how it is spelt)

So yes bush and his rice certainly helped 9/11 happen but didnt actually plan it

[PolyNewbie]

Baylee:In reality I seriously doubt that the American government planned 9/11.

They reserve that for planning murder usually in South American and middle east countries.

The "central banker/war" model as the ex banker Catharine Austin Fitts calls it is running out of fuel. These same forces that operate on other countries are being turned on us.

The US gov had to be involved to get the military to stand down but as as far as culpability differences between MIHOP and LIHOP go, do they exist ? Is there any moral difference between the two ?

[PolyNewbie]

CanadianBlue:Meanwhile the ASCE, MIT, the University of Sydney, and the Scientific American, all refute the 9/11 revisionists.

Judy Wood who is a member of ASCE doesn't go along with the official version, what makes you think all the others do ?

Which engineers actually go along with the official version in these organizations ?

Canadian Blue:the University of Sydney

But their ideas on what happened are rediculous.

[BayLee]

The US gov had to be involved to get the military to stand down

On that point you are correct.