9/11

[Riverwind]

The prosecutor puts forth a case, the defence pokes giant holes in the case , taking away from the credibility and probability of the prosecutors case, thereby rendering the scenario implausible/questionable.

The justice system works on the premise of innocent unless proven guilty. This means the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When some is found innocent by the court that does not mean they did not commit the crime - it simply means the evidence was not enough to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.

This is not the court room. If you expect to be taken serious it is _not_ enough to establish reasonable doubt by pointing out minor inconsistencies in the widely accepted explanation. You _must_ provide an alternate explanation. Failure to do so simply demonstrates that you do not really have an argument and are simply blowing hot air.

[Riverwind]

The prosecutor puts forth a case, the defence pokes giant holes in the case , taking away from the credibility and probability of the prosecutors case, thereby rendering the scenario implausible/questionable.

The justice system works on the premise of innocent unless proven guilty. This means the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When someone is found innocent by the court that does not mean they did not commit the crime - it simply means the evidence was not enough to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt. IOW - finding gaps in the widely accepted explaination does not prove it is not true.

This is not the court room. If you expect to be taken serious it is _not_ enough to establish reasonable doubt by pointing out minor inconsistencies in the widely accepted explanation. You _must_ provide an alternate explanation. Failure to do so simply demonstrates that you do not really have an argument and are simply blowing hot air.

[kuzadd]

The prosecutor puts forth a case, the defence pokes giant holes in the case , taking away from the credibility and probability of the prosecutors case, thereby rendering the scenario implausible/questionable.

The justice system works on the premise of innocent unless proven guilty. This means the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When some is found innocent by the court that does not mean they did not commit the crime - it simply means the evidence was not enough to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.

This is not the court room. If you expect to be taken serious it is _not_ enough to establish reasonable doubt by pointing out minor inconsistencies in the widely accepted explanation. You _must_ provide an alternate explanation. Failure to do so simply demonstrates that you do not really have an argument and are simply blowing hot air.

so you say, but then I find most of what you say, ridiculous anyway.

Here again you are creating an arguement, for yourself, to argue.

The ONUS or BURDEN of proof is NOT ON ME.

It is on the US government.

I do not believe the official story, when I look at the EVIDENCE, the official story is not credible.

The debate all, along has been about 9/11 and the events surrounding it.

The story doesn't hold up, from begining to end!

That is that!

I do not have to provide alternative scenarios, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the American gov.

They failed!

You wish to unflinchingly believe, and be willfully blind, by all means entertain yourself.

[GostHacked]

GhostHacked:But I disagree with many things he talks about.

Like what ? You don't think what I say about the banks is true ?

It's not that at all really. To me after about a year and a bit of looking into all of this and the bigger picture in which 9/11 was just a small part of. You can talk about the thermodynamicalphysics of the buildings all you want, but if you are not looking at the bigger picture and subdue the ADD tendancies for a moment it may help you with understanding the grand scheme of things.

MY PROBLEM with Polynewbie and his like is they rehash the bombs thing over and over but not give any real context to the possible of 'why' there were bombs in the building. Look Polynewbie, I agree with you, but if youi want to get people to understand the WHY of it all, you need to move onto the bigger picture of it all.

I will say the bankers along with elements of the government that all have large ties to main stream media (bear with me here) have something to do with it. WTC was a 'gold mine' if you will, of financial institutions (banks, investor groups, ect), government offices, well I will let this site speak for itself on the tenants of WTC.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center_tenants follow the links for the other buildings. Now I know wikipedia is now considered as sketchy as for it's accuracy but this simplifies the search, and well, I guess there is no secret of who was tennants. Even the Secret Service had some offices there.

Strategicaly that place would be a #1 hotspot for a possible terror attack. But not from the point of view most are used to. If it was true terrorism, would you not think that maybe a bridge, or mall or something against a civilian place? Something in the water system? Airborne contaminate. Messing with the food supply something along that nature. A work office seems possible for a terror attack.

So let's begin shall we?

Years ago back in the 80's there was some scandals involving some really big companies. Something was done in the government to break up large monopolistic companies and tried to create a more competative market for everyone buy giving more people a small chunk of the pie. Some of those bankers would have lost out big time. (The military industrial complex fits into this as well, for some defence contractors would need investors in order to create new military hardware and applications, investors mean large banking/financial institutions)..... So now with bankers having a smaller chunk of the pie they would also have less say in said company they are a shareholder of. Many hands in the pot tends to not be good for business in that sense. ......... So fine, it was done, large companies were chopped up. Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr. Sept 11 2001, happens. ....... I suspect some shady deals were done here and there, and it end up creating a smaller band of people with something more in mind, they conspired together to influence the government by supporting Democrats as well as Republicans (Bankers know that they need to diversify their portfolio if they want to have the best turn around)

You can also put a good bet on those bankers having a good say in what goes on in the think tanks they decide to invest in. Think Tanks only exist to act as lobbyists for the coporations that the bankers control anyways.

I would hope that the tenants of the World Trade Center complex would have offsite and even possible off continent servers to store critical information. Anyone in IT understands that. If not many records would have been lost. Any wrong doings would have basicly been erased. Private, public and government records could have simply vanished. Not only that knowledge stored in some brains are permanently gone as well. Knowledge that could have shown the bankers involvement.

I need to mention the attack on the Pentagon here now too. Bankers would have a lot of pull in the Pentagon, since the position of Secretary of Defence is a civilian not military position. I would guess there are many civilains holding imporant positions in the Pentagon. Military Industrian Complex. Money has been pouring into the Pentagon for upgrades and improvements.

Fast foward to today.

Have you seen corporations today? They are getting monopolistic again. Not only that, the bankers have gotten away with basicly hijacking the economy of the United States on that fatefull day. They have the most to gain from this than anyone. With that control of money you can control government on any scale. That includes policies regarding how corporations function, the environment, and even foriegn policy. They also can control what information gets to you, the person sitting in that chair reading this right now. They can control the news outlets to say what they want to say. Take a look at the news that is delivered to you these days. Notice that the names of reporters are going away to be replaced by 'some news source entity' always by some annonymous source.

Government spending is out of control now as well. Guess who's cash is being spent or let's say reinvested into the private corporations in junction with an ever growing accelerating military industrial complex. Who is making the money off the war?

In a way this shows to me that the Iraq War is proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

But then again, some guy in a freaking cave and a walking stick managed to bribe some dudes, gave them BOX CUTTERS and managed to hijack planes and struck at the financial heart core of the United States..... all because they simply hate us?

This is my view on the 'why' of 9/11. And go ahead and shoot holes in it. It is just a theory, so do not take it as a fact of what happened. That is something many of you do, and I won't tolerate it for my post.

I have a theory on why the blacc boxes were not recovered from the WTC site, and why (not sure if anyone tried) to read information off the hard drives that could have been found in the rubble. I know shock is not good for hard drives, for I have killed a few by dropping them, but the platters can be taken out and read in a clean room ect. One nice large electromagnetic pulse would have taken care of that. Sure that would affect more than whatever was in the buildings at the time. Surrounding buildings and other electronic gear would have been useless after that fact.

So this to me is a cover up of wrong doing by large companies, in coheasion with the judicial system which influences government. They tried to hide the mistakes by another mistake.

More on those black boxes.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/inves...ons/q0302.shtml

They use Flgiht 93 for picture examples.

Current regulations require the black boxes to survive an impact of 3,400 g's for up to 6.5 milliseconds. This rapid deceleration is equivalent to slowing from a speed of 310 miles per hour (500 km/h) to a complete stop in a distance of just 18 inches (45 cm). This requirement is tested by firing the CSMU from an air cannon to demonstrate the device can withstand an impact force at least 3,400 times its own weight. The black boxes must also survive a penetration test during which a steel pin dropped from a height of 10 ft (3 m) impacts the CSMU at its most vulnerable point with a force of 500 pounds (2,225 N). In addition, a static crush test is conducted to demonstrate that all sides of the CSMU can withstand a pressure of 5,000 pounds per square inch (350 kg/cm²) for five minutes. The fire resistance of the CSMU is further tested by exposing it to a temperature of 2,000°F (1,100°C) for up to an hour. The device is also required to survive after lying in smoldering wreckage for ten hours at a temperature of 500°F (260°C).

Now it may be near impossible to find the black boxes from the planes that hit the WTC 1 and 2, after the inferno, collapse, then smoldering crater for months afterward. Even those conditions are way above what is required for these black boxes.

Question for you all. How does that smoldering crater keep that hot for that long after the crash?? Even during cleanup a month after the attack, the site was still putting out lots of smoke. But we have not really seen the pics of the 'molten core' in the MSM.

Anyways, how about my theory?

[bush_cheney2004]

I do not believe the official story, when I look at the EVIDENCE, the official story is not credible.

The debate all, along has been about 9/11 and the events surrounding it.

The story doesn't hold up, from begining to end!

That is that!

I do not have to provide alternative scenarios, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the American gov.

They failed!

You wish to unflinchingly believe, and be willfully blind, by all means entertain yourself.

Oh, in other words, you have nothing...zip....nada, regardless of the "official story". You have not presented any evidence of direct US government complicity by present or past administrations.

Googling Class D fires came a little late to rescue your original (and very false) assertion.

I think segnosaur said it best....there are plenty of reasons to dislike the present US administrations policies, but the willful destruction of the WTC, Pentagon, and associated aircraft is not one of them.

[Riverwind]

I do not have to provide alternative scenarios, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the American gov.

Sorry - it doesn't work that way. The overwhleming weight of the evidence available supports the widely accepted explaination. The US government has done its job. If you seek to convince others that the government has not done its job the the ONUS IS ON YOU to provide an alternate explaination. Your are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

The fact that you refuse to provide one demonstrates that are simply blowing a lot of hot air. Why should anyone take you seriously?

[jazzer]

Now it may be near impossible to find the black boxes from the planes that hit the WTC 1 and 2, after the inferno, collapse, then smoldering crater for months afterward.

Perhaps had they treated the area as a crime scene, their discovery might have come to light.

[psikeyhackr]

Sorry - it doesn't work that way. The overwhleming weight of the evidence available supports the widely accepted explaination. The US government has done its job. If you seek to convince others that the government has not done its job the the ONUS IS ON YOU to provide an alternate explaination. Your are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

The fact that you refuse to provide one demonstrates that are simply blowing a lot of hot air. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Only the delusional who don't do the most casual checking can believe the government has done its job.

How many tons of steel were on the 80th floor of south tower where the plane hit? Have you heard that in SIX YEARS? But supposedly 34 tons of kerosene, alias jet fuel, turned an unspecified amount of steel into licorice. EXCUSE ME!!! I have downloaded and searched the NIST reports, they don't even specify the quantity of concrete in the towers though in a couple of places they say "roughly 200,000 tons of steel."

A lot of websites say the towers contained "200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete" so half of that was in each tower. Calculating it out results in 100,000 tons of steel and 280,000 tons of concrete in each tower. You won't find that in the NIST report. Now the floor slabs account for almost 80,000 tons of the concrete so where was the other 200,000+ tons? In the core? What was the distribution of mass of steel and concrete in the buildings? Why can't the experts tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on eery floor of buildings designed in the 1960's six years after their collapse? Don't they have enough computing power? They had enough to design it in the 60's but now we don't have enough to find the distribution of steel and concrete?

Anyone that can believe that a 166 ton airliner containing 34 tons of kerosene can knock a 500,000 ton building level to the ground in 56 minutes needs to have his head examined by someone other than the US government. Ever take a physics course? F.R. Greening needs one.

http://booksliterature.com/showpost.php?p=2382&postcount=5

psikey

[M.Dancer]

Has anyone calculated how much tinfoil there is in this thread.....had anyone told me 6 years ago that a 166 ton airliner containing 34 tons of kerosene could generate over 1900 tinfoil posts I would have told them they were nuts.....

[M.Dancer]

Anyone that can believe that a 166 ton airliner containing 34 tons of kerosene can knock a 500,000 ton building level to the ground in 56 minutes......

psikey

South Tower collapsed in 56 minutes ...North Tower collapsed in 1 hour and 44 minutes....I guess the gov't screwed up that one......

[Hollus]

The idea that someone who questions the official story must provide a bulletproof alternative explanation is ludicrious. If you were to go to a magicians performance and wittiness the dissaperance of an elephant right before your eyes, do you suppose that without knowing the exact nature of the magicians trick, there is no reason to believe the magician did not actually perform an illusion?

There are huge holes in the official story. For instance, regarding the impact at the pentagon. If Flight 77 struck the Pentagon as the official story states, why has the surveillance videos from the near-by Meridian Hotel and gas stations which had clear view of the impact zone been confiscated and classified? What is there to hide?

[M.Dancer]

The idea that someone who questions the official story must provide a bulletproof alternative explanation is ludicrious. If you were to go to a magicians performance and wittiness the dissaperance of an elephant right before your eyes, do you suppose that without knowing the exact nature of the magicians trick, there is no reason to believe the magician did not actually perform an illusion?

I don't have to know it is a trick, to know it is a trick. Similarly, I don't have to know the physics of the World Trade Centres collapse, to know it wasn't a trick.

If someone posits an extraordinary explanation, then they need factual evidence. Until such time, the professional opinions of why a jet slamming into a tower and melting the structure are much more plausible that exrtrordinary speculation.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Just a quick side note:

I have not patricipated in this thread in probably a year or so. Why? Because responding to conspiracy theorists only puts them in the conversation in the first place, which only helps provide the illusino that their claims are even close to legitimate.

I suggest anyone who realizes the ludicrousy of conspiray theories do the same: ignore.

Meantime, I though I would just drop in to say I can't believe this thread has 140 pages worth of replies.

Wow. People really are as dumb as I thought.

[Riverwind]

Anyone that can believe that a 166 ton airliner containing 34 tons of kerosene can knock a 500,000 ton building level to the ground in 56 minutes needs to have his head examined by someone other than the US government.

Energy in 1 ton of TNT: 4 x 10^9 Joules

Energy in the WTC towers above the impact point: ~363 x 10^9 Joules or 91 tons of TNT

It was the weight of the buildings that caused them to collapse.

Ever take a physics course?

Many. But obviously you have not.

[psikeyhackr]

Energy in 1 ton of TNT: 4 x 10^9 Joules

Energy in the WTC towers above the impact point: ~363 x 10^9 Joules or 91 tons of TNT

Many. But obviously you have not.

If you can tell us that, and be correct of course, then you should be able to tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor above the impact point. Let's see you do it. The NIST report doesn't even specify the tons of concrete in the buildings. Greening is talking bullsh!t by averaging the mass of the building over the number of floors.

http://booksliterature.com/showpost.php?p=2382&postcount=5

psik

[Riverwind]

If you can tell us that, and be correct of course, then you should be able to tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor above the impact point.

A red herring. The structure itself is likely not perfectly symmetrical, however, 5000 tons/floor is a reasonable estimate. Even if the top floors were half that mass (2500 tonnes/floor) they would still have a potential energy of 45 tons of TNT - more than enough to explain the results observed on 9/11.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are huge holes in the official story. For instance, regarding the impact at the pentagon. If Flight 77 struck the Pentagon as the official story states, why has the surveillance videos from the near-by Meridian Hotel and gas stations which had clear view of the impact zone been confiscated and classified? What is there to hide?

There is nothing to hide...the "official story" will always have holes, varying confidence levels of certainty, and outright gaps. However, such unkowns and discontinuities are not proof of government complicity in committing air piracy and mass murder.

Hell, you guys are still dicking around with the Air India disaster after more than 20 years.

[Riverwind]

The idea that someone who questions the official story must provide a bulletproof alternative explanation is ludicrious.

A bullet proof alternative is not absolutely necessary - all that is necessary is an alternative that is more plausible than the

existing explaination. Refusing to offer any plausible alternative at all is a big waste of time and you are simply asking to have your views dismissed as quackery.

Look at this way: Bohr developed a theory about atoms which explained many observations. However, this theory had many holes and inconsitencies that Bohr could not explain. Later scientists developed quantum theory which filled in many of the holes and, at certain level, demonstrated that Bohr was 'wrong'.

That said, the scientific community accepted Bohr's theory as basically valid even though it had these holes. More importantly, Bohr did get many of the basic concepts right even though his theory was not complete.

The government will never be able to completely explain what happened on 9/11 and it probably has a number of details wrong. However, the only thing that is important is whether they have got the basic story right. The evidence to date strongly suggests they have. That is why it is not enough to find minor errors and inconsistancies. If you believe that the government story is completely wrong then you MUST provide an alternate equally plausable story.

[psikeyhackr]

If you can tell us that, and be correct of course, then you should be able to tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor above the impact point.

A red herring. The structure itself is likely not perfectly symmetrical, however, 5000 tons/floor is a reasonable estimate. Even if the top floors were half that mass (2500 tonnes/floor) they would still have a potential energy of 45 tons of TNT - more than enough to explain the results observed on 9/11.

Now this is totally absurd. All you have to do is check the NIST report.

There were 12 grades of steel used on the perimeter columns alone. From 100 kips down to 35 kips. That's thousand pounds per square inch. The steel of the core columns had to be and was thicker at the bottom of the building. If it is possible to build a 110 skyscraper with constant mass from bottom to top then it is stupid an unnecessarily expensive because it means the top is stronger than necessary and the bottom has to hold more weight than necessary. So why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor.

Sure, it's a Red Herring because you can't come up with the data. So why don't the world renowned scientists and engineers at the NIST put it out there for the whole world to see?

ROFL

psik

[Riverwind]

If it is possible to build a 110 skyscraper with constant mass from bottom to top then it is stupid an unnecessarily expensive because it means the top is stronger than necessary and the bottom has to hold more weight than necessary.

I never said it was constant. I said that assuming it is constant is a reasonable approximation and that the conclusions drawn by Greening et. al. are still valid because amount of energy involved is still huge even if the upper floors were as little as 1/10th the mass of the lower floors.

If you are so convinced then why don't YOU produce evidence that shows that the differences in mass were sufficient to invalidate Greening's conclusions? (Simply saying that there was a difference does not establish that the difference was significant)

[Hollus]

I don't have to know it is a trick, to know it is a trick. Similarly, I don't have to know the physics of the World Trade Centres collapse, to know it wasn't a trick.

And I dont have to know exactly what happened to know that the 'official story' is blatently wrong.

If someone posits an extraordinary explanation, then they need factual evidence. Until such time, the professional opinions of why a jet slamming into a tower and melting the structure are much more plausible that exrtrordinary speculation.

There is no factual evidence to support the 'official' story. Why do you not apply the same standards to the 'official' story as you apply to alternative ones? How do you discern between conflicting professional opinions?

Maybe you do have to know its a trick, to know its a trick. Some people believe in magic. There are certianly some very magical mysteries surrounding the events of 9/11

For instance, the magical molten steel. Where did this molten steel come from?

The 'official' story: "While it was impossible for the fuel rich, diffuse flame fire to burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to loose half its strength and to deform causing buckling and crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the wieght of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating the domino collapse." Eagar and Musso, MIT 2001

Ofcousre we know that steel, or any substance burned, will never become hotter than the fire or heat applied to it. We know that steel melts at a temperature no less than 2750'F. And, we know that at optimal conditions (such as the burning jet fuel while injecting oxygen) jet fuel will burn at 1800'F. So do you have a proffesional opinion to explain that one?

[Hollus]

There are huge holes in the official story. For instance, regarding the impact at the pentagon. If Flight 77 struck the Pentagon as the official story states, why has the surveillance videos from the near-by Meridian Hotel and gas stations which had clear view of the impact zone been confiscated and classified? What is there to hide?

There is nothing to hide...the "official story" will always have holes, varying confidence levels of certainty, and outright gaps. However, such unkowns and discontinuities are not proof of government complicity in committing air piracy and mass murder.

Hell, you guys are still dicking around with the Air India disaster after more than 20 years.

Well then Bush/Cheney, why is it being hidden???? If in fact there is nothing to hide would you please write you governmental representative and request they release the classified Merridian Hotel security tapes so we can all watch flight 77 fly into the Pentagon and put this part of the mystery to rest?

[Riverwind]

For instance, the magical molten steel. Where did this molten steel come from?

There was no molten steel. The observed metal was aluminium mixed carbon and silicon from the windows.

If in fact there is nothing to hide would you please write you governmental representative and request they release the classified Merridian Hotel security tapes so we can all watch flight 77 fly into the Pentagon and put this part of the mystery to rest?

Because there is no mystery and government officials have better things to do than placate every loonie with a conspiracy theory. If you don't believe that flight 77 hit the pentagon then explain:

1) what happened to flight 77 and the people on it?

2) why would anyone bother to use a missle and make a plane dissappear?

No one will take your demands for the tapes seriously unless you can come up with a plausible answer to those questions. In fact, no one should take you seriously unless you answer those questions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ofcousre we know that steel, or any substance burned, will never become hotter than the fire or heat applied to it. We know that steel melts at a temperature no less than 2750'F. And, we know that at optimal conditions (such as the burning jet fuel while injecting oxygen) jet fuel will burn at 1800'F. So do you have a proffesional opinion to explain that one?

False...there are several exothermic reactions that will become hotter than initiating heat.

The steel needn't have melted at all....it only only had to lose strength and stiffness (elastic modulus) at the elevated temperatures for the open span design.

We recently had another demonstration of the effects of heat on steel reinforced concrete structures:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269118,00.html

[Hollus]

The government will never be able to completely explain what happened on 9/11 and it probably has a number of details wrong. However, the only thing that is important is whether they have got the basic story right. The evidence to date strongly suggests they have. That is why it is not enough to find minor errors and inconsistancies. If you believe that the government story is completely wrong then you MUST provide an alternate equally plausable story.

There are blatant errors and inconsistancies, not minor ones. This is why there must be a full and independant investigation with under oath testemonies from the top level administrators such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The evidence to date strongly suggests the basic story is a fabrication designed as a pretext for a massive policy shift.

The Project for a New American Century, written in 2000 and signed by the names Donald Rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle among others, outlined a massive military expansion, particularily in the middle east. Within this document (which was later incarnated as the National Defence Strategy once the admin took office) there is a sentence which states: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

From the horses mouth. It goes deeper if your willing to look.