/ 9/11 The Third Tower

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
buzby78 - on 02 Feb 2013
Does anybody else know that a 3rd tower collapsed on this day?

Not many people do.

Here's some interesting viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g
Mediocre Scientist - on 02 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Yes, it featured in the 24 hours of news coverage that day. And as far as I can remember, was consistent with fire damage.

But I'm not a structural engineer, or demolition expert.
buzby78 - on 02 Feb 2013
In reply to Mediocre Scientist:

Consistent with fire damage, really? Can you give an example?
Sir Chasm - on 02 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: It was done with lasers, or thermite, or lizards. Where's my tin foil hat?
buzby78 - on 02 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sure it wasn't fire damage then?
Sir Chasm - on 02 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Certain. It was a shadowy cabal, rogue CIA agents worked for days before laying thermite charges throughout a number of floors, they were worried that 2 large buildings falling down wouldn't be very newsworthy so they wanted to knock another one down to make sure the event didn't get bumped off the front pages. How do I know, I hear you say. Well, if I told you that I'd have to kill you.
buzby78 - on 02 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

and I thought nobody knew about it...
gritrash0 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Mediocre Scientist:
> (In reply to buzby78)
>
> Yes, it featured in the 24 hours of news coverage that day. And as far as I can remember, was consistent with fire damage.
>
> But I'm not a structural engineer, or demolition expert.

There are some that are that apparently don't agree
www.ae911truth.org/
itsThere on 03 Feb 2013
John_Hat - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Yup, well aware. Conspiracy theorists I believe have the whole 9/11 thing going as a front for getting rid of that building.

Also well aware that steel loses something like 50% of its structural strength at an alarmingly low tempterature. In fact, as far as fire resistance is concerned, structural timber is actually a lot better. However that was from my six years being a civil engineer...
ice.solo - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

i did it. wasnt too hard, i just laced the building with C4 while no one was watching then waited for my friends to fly their planes into the other two and pressed a button. simple really. when dicussing it with osama the week before we all decided 'what the hey, if we are going to trash the other two, why not this one. it wont fall by itself'.

getting all the jews to not show up that day for work was the hard bit. thankfully 100% of them have kept their mouths shut.

but dont tell anyone ok.
IainRUK - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> Does anybody else know that a 3rd tower collapsed on this day?
>
> Not many people do.
>
> Here's some interesting viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g

Yes.. everyone knew about it.. it's been discussed since it fell.

If it was CIA etc why wait 6 odd hours...

Haven't watched the youtube link..
dissonance - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

sorry but it as everyone knows the secret commando ninjas used thermite not C4.

ice.solo - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:

actually we used thermite in the other towers - easier to make look like the effects of plane fuel.
C4 was better for the 3rd tower, so it would appear as structural failing.

see, we hoodwinked everybody.

commando ninjas are pretty good

vincentvega - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Without looking at the links, im sure I read an article once that said prior to 9/11, no steel structured building has ever completely collapsed as a result of fire.
The 3rd tower, WTC7 did.
needvert on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to vincentvega:

The start of that video says that.

It's a subtle implication, presuming it's true. And quite worthless, too. The world is full of events happening that haven't happened before.
Moggsy on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to John_Hat: it's 600 degrees for an RSJ
MG - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to Mediocre Scientist)
>
> Consistent with fire damage, really? Can you give an example?

Yes, the second Cardington test that was stopped due to the imminent failure of a column. Column failure was the most likley trigger of the WTC7 collapse too.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
SI - profile removed on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Have you seen the video of the Chinese building on fire? Shows what a building on fire actually looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc
NWO resistance on 03 Feb 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gwcQjDhZtI Aaron Russo talks about Rockefeller Elite and 9/11
ads.ukclimbing.com
JSA - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Moggsy:
> (In reply to John_Hat) it's 600 degrees for an RSJ

That means nothing without the size of RSJ/UB.
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to needvert:

Although it was also the first steel structured building to collapse due to fire, it was also the 3rd ever building to collapse in a uniformed way receiving no resistance from other floors, just like its two neighbouring buildings that collapsed a few hours earlier? Peculiar if you ask me...


MG - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
? Peculiar if you ask me...
Why?
Had two planes ever been deliberately flown into buildings previously?

buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

Ok thanks,I was just wondering why this may have been? So planes hitting a neighbouring buildings will definitely cause this type of collapse then?
MG - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Ok thanks,I was just wondering why this may have been? So planes hitting a neighbouring buildings will definitely cause this type of collapse then?

No, but quite possibly.
Steve Perry - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: The New York fire brigade "pulled it" apparently they're fully qualified demolition experts who can drop a 49 floor building in minutes.
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

Thanks Steve, that was quite funny...
Bruce Hooker - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Ok thanks,I was just wondering why this may have been? So planes hitting a neighbouring buildings will definitely cause this type of collapse then?

Planes full of kerosene, they had just taken off, are likely to have this effect. It's not a common occurrence, in fact I don't think it had happened before.

buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Thanks Bruce, that was even funnier!
Bruce Hooker - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Really, has it happened before then?
gritrash0 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MG: From the NIST report :
'NIST’s entire investigation included no physical evidence'
I'm no scientist but I find this a bit strange.
It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy for the official line to be wrong. NIST have put together an explanation that many experts believe plausible. There are other experts who disagree. Unusual things happen.
What I see on this forum, as in real life, is that anyone who questions the official line is immediately labelled as a shape-shifting-lizard believer. People who question shouldn't be mocked, the sheeple who eat up everything the powers-that-be tell them on the other hand....
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I've never heard such a funny thing no!
IainRUK - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:
> People who question shouldn't be mocked, the sheeple who eat up everything the powers-that-be tell them on the other hand....


Questioning is fine.. with evidence.. not made up bullshit.. and also they don't answer the questions other people ask them..
johnj on 03 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:

Evidence you ask for.....

fill yer boots

http://drjudywood.com/
Eric9Points - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:
> (In reply to MG) From the NIST report :

> What I see on this forum, as in real life, is that anyone who questions the official line is immediately labelled as a shape-shifting-lizard believer. People who question shouldn't be mocked, the sheeple who eat up everything the powers-that-be tell them on the other hand....

No reasonable enquiry shouldn't be mocked but idiots who think the whole world is run by the Illuminati or Mossad and nit pick on the details of an official report in the hope of discrediting it to a point where they can then propose their own ludicrous theory based on almost no evidence but which fits in with their puerile world view do need the piss taken out of them.

My view? A couple of planes were flown into two huge building which went on fire and collapsed causing lots of collateral damage. As a result another building near by also fell down. The mechanism for it's collapse is probably broadly in line with the official story but not exactly. In fact isn't the "official" story a "probable" explanation rather than "the" explanation.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
elsewhere on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to Moggsy)
> [...]
>
> That means nothing without the size of RSJ/UB.

Change in properties with temperature depends on material rather than shape or size, an ice cube and an iceberg both melt at the same temperature - just one takes a bit longer.

A bigger girder will take longer to heat up but it will get weak at the same temperature a smaller girder.

Steve Perry - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Demolition experts later said to drop a building like building 7 in such a controlled demolition - as the NY fire brigade achieved in minutes - would take around 2 months of prepping with around 50 guys. Inserting explosive around support columns that have had the concrete removed is a very laborious task and where did the NY fire brigade get there explosives??
Steve Perry - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: There were buildings a lot closer than building 7 which received no structural damage from the impacts of 1 & 2
Eric9Points - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:

... and your point is?

elsewhere on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) There were buildings a lot closer than building 7 which received no structural damage from the impacts of 1 & 2

That ties in with fire damage being the cause of collapse rather than impacts.

Bruce Hooker - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to elsewhere:

Quite true. Anyone who doubts this should try heating a bit of steel with a blowtorch to red heat, it become really soft and can be bent easily. The girders in the buildings were, IIRC, boxed in concrete but the heat from all those thousands of gallons of fuel burning was sufficient to destroy the structural strength all the same - the buildings had not been designed with such an event in mind. Two airliners full to the gunnels with fuel, hardly a likely design event... until it happened.
Al Evans on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Steve Perry: Assuming its not a conspiracy, did Allah shine on Al Queda that day?
radson - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

I was trying to get a handle on why people want to believe in 9/11 conspiracies and read this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies

Like many articles now, the real fun is reading the crazy batshit comments.
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

It's been quite interesting reading the replies to my post.

I was really just interested in hearing whether people knew of the 3rd tower collapsing, not many people I have spoken to have, so I thought i'd see if others had similar experiences?

Nearly every reply has been an assumption on my supposed conspiracy belief (which I have never stated) or an explanation on how it collapsed.

I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?

jkarran - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Really, has it happened before then?

1992 Amsterdam.
SFM - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

You'd almost think that the UKc mob gets a bit bored with Sept 11th posts.

I wonder if his topic has ever been brought up before.....
jonathan shepherd - on 03 Feb 2013
> (In reply to buzby78)
>
> It's been quite interesting reading the replies to my post.
>
> I was really just interested in hearing whether people knew of the 3rd tower collapsing.
I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?


Did you really just want people to reply with "Yes, i had heard of it" or "No, i hadn't heard of it". Not much of a debate there either is there?

gritrash0 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to radson: I guess you decided to actually click on the OP's link and then deleted your post.
You made your mind up before looking at the facts which I guess makes you just as ignorant as these 'conspiracy theorists' eh?
Steve Perry - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Al Evans: I suppose the answer to that would be determined by a persons' religion and beliefs, however radical they may be.
gritrash0 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Steve Perry:
> (In reply to Al Evans) I suppose the answer to that would be determined by a persons' religion and beliefs, however radical they may be.

Speaking of people believing in things with no scientific evidence to back them up...
mcdougal - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

If anyone wants any more paranoia fodder just have a look at the list of occupants of building 7.
itsThere on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: To put it another way, up untill 9/11 no one knew if a plane hitting it would bring the building down. Yes we can model it and see what temperatures the building will fail at. A better example of this was the Titanic. We thought that would be ok, untill it reached a critical point. When the 5th compartment was breached.

One other point is that if your building is going to fall down, its best that it wont fall on another building. Maybe it was made that way. I dont know this, just putting it out there.
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to itsThere:

Fair points indeed, apart from the fact that building 7 was never hit by a plane. Building 7 was partially on fire for 7 hours and then uniformaly collapsed at the speed if gravity exactly like its two neighbouring buildings. I can't help but think that that is a pretty unfeasible thing to happen...
Sir Chasm - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: What's your feasible alternative?
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I absolutely don't have one I'm afraid! Is it not ok to question something without having an answer though?
MG - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: What response would you expect from a that sort of structure after a seven hour fire? Why do you think collapse isn't a feasible result?
MJ - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?

Not wanting to be perdantic, but it's calibre and not caliber.
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

I'm sure a partial collapse would be more than feasible, just like other buildings have partially collapsed in the past. But, a building has never collapsed in that way purely through fire damage before. I guess it's just a coincidence that this building also collapsed in a completely uniform manor after receiving completely different damage to it than its neighbours?
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MJ:

Thanks, I'll remember that for the future...

itsThere on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: it was also on fire which wont help. Another way to look at it is how many high multi storey building have collapsed like this. I dont know. Here is also an examples of bad luck.

http://tinyurl.com/cwc2935

You can also think of it as what random chain of events do we need for such event to be triggered. This can be related to lots of disasters, think piper alpha, deep water horizon, Mount St. Helens, Fukushima Daiichi and so on.

This brings us back to the titanic, so WTC7 was on fire and by chance that was enough to cause the collapse.
MG - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: As above that is not the case - collapses have occurred experimentally and in real buildings but it is very rare to have such severe fires so there are not many examples. And no, its not a conicidence that three buildings collapsed together. All three were subject to very severe, multi-storey fires, well outside any design requirements. This is a unique situaton. The collapse mechanisms were similar but not identical between WTC7 and WTC1 and2, reflecting the different structural systems.
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

I don't see how WTC 7 being on fire was a unique situation that would result in its complete uniform collapse though? Fair do's when it comes to WTC's 1 and 2 but WTC 7 collapsing in the same way?
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> I don't see how WTC 7 being on fire was a unique situation that would result in its complete uniform collapse though? Fair do's when it comes to WTC's 1 and 2 but WTC 7 collapsing in the same way?

Once the building start to go, what are the options - fall sideways like a tree or collapse straight down? I would imagine with the weight of material above the damaged area is only going one place when it starts to fail.


Chris
buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Chris Craggs:

Yes buildings can fall sideways or straight down, however, no building has ever collapsed in a free fall way like this before, there would be resistance from other parts of the structure. It looks totally unreal to me...
John_Hat - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Chris Craggs:

No idea.. however thinking about it with my ex-structural-engineer hat on (and its a fairly old hat), the natural tendency for all the material of a building is to fall straight down unless pushed otherwise.

I would have also through that a domino effect would apply, so that once one support failed, the four on either side would then have to bear the load it was taking, so if they were already stressed, they would be likely to go to, which would then over-stress the eight around them, etc.

i.e. I'd say the most likely failure mode would be sudden catastrophic failure of the whole building some while after the fire started, and for all the material to head to earth in the most direct fashion - i.e. straight down.
MG - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: It's not 'freefall' - it is a bit slower. Plenty of buildings collapse downwards, even in earthquakes where there is sideways motion. John Hat is about right in his explanation. WTC7 wass a little more complex becaue it was an unusal structural form.
gritrash0 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to buzby78) It's not 'freefall' - it is a bit slower.
From NISTs analysis of the video footage:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

See stage 2. They give an explanation as to why they believe this was :
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm


jayme - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to buzby78)
>
> I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?
>
> Not wanting to be perdantic, but it's calibre and not caliber.

Not wanting to be pedantic, but its pedantic and not perdantic :)

buzby78 - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to jayme:

Think he was making a cheeky joke there...
John_Hat - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to buzby78) It's not 'freefall' - it is a bit slower. Plenty of buildings collapse downwards, even in earthquakes where there is sideways motion. John Hat is about right in his explanation. WTC7 wass a little more complex becaue it was an unusal structural form.

Ta! Yes, I remember a picture of a building that had collapsed in an earthquake and it was simply a reasonably neat pile of floor slabs one on top of the other, almost as if they had been stacked for delivery.

Best not to think of the staff who had been working in between them.
Moggsy on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to JSA: i wouldn't trust you to design a garden shed..... Metal properties don't change with size you nugget. It just takes longer to heat
Quarryboy - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

To be honest I don't know why the two towers got all the bad attention it did, personally I thought it was the best lord of the rings film.

Duh dum chh

Bruce Hooker - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran:

Not quite the same, only one plane, not a skyscraper, just a fire. Interesting about the dodgy cargo of Israeli chemical weapons though - plenty of scope for conspiracy theories there. I don't think the crash raises the same issues as being discussed on this thread at all though, does it?
ice.solo - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to John_Hat:

i will confirm that. having spent a fair bit of time in earthquake affected areas (not just japan, but elsewhere with less regulated construction, ie sichuan, turkey, iran and pakistan) most buildings do just collapse downwards. especially modern buildings in places with strict codes where they are designed that way (i live in a new 36 story building and have had the tennants intro tour where all this is displayed).

the weakest point is amplified in accordance with their height and mass and they collapse from there. to the point where in tokyo thats commonly regarded as the 4th, 5th and 6th floors and rent is often cheaper as people are not so keen on living there.

without buying into it all; it could be that the ground shock of the 2 main towers emulated something akin to a localized quake, and the fire in the building (unsurprisingly) affected the 'collapse level' and you have what happened. im assuming all towers shared a common foundation complex. it would be interesting to hear about close by buildings to see how they were affected.
dissonance - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to ice.solo:

> it would be interesting to hear about close by buildings to see how they were affected.

The fell straight down is one of those slightly misleading claims. The obvious example being WTC7 which has pictures showing the massive damage to one corner caused by debris from the main tower collapse.
ice.solo - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to ice.solo)
>
> [...]
>
> The fell straight down is one of those slightly misleading claims. The obvious example being WTC7 which has pictures showing the massive damage to one corner caused by debris from the main tower collapse.

Sure. 'downward' more so than 'tree-like'.
With so many factors its way beyond me - other than that sinister agents blowing it up from the inside is a long way down the list of likely causes.
stroppygob - on 03 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to buzby78) It was done with lasers, or thermite, or lizards. Where's my tin foil hat?

Bollocks! It was the Pentagon, they did it in order to start the war in Iraq and to seize control of all the middle east oilfields. The Lizards were just resting in the basement.

needvert on 04 Feb 2013
I'm not saying there aren't real conspiracies out there, I think there probably are - given how history is full of deceit.

But this building falling down...No, I don't think its one of them.
colina - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
I find it difficult to understand why there is no cctv of the object/plane that crashed into the pentagon...
on such a high profile building I would have thought there would have been several cameras panned onto this building.
not even a mobile camera pic/video ,nothing ..unless im missing something
GrahamD - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to needvert:

> But this building falling down...No, I don't think its one of them.

and your qualification for making this assertion ? just so we know how much or how little relevance it is.

ads.ukclimbing.com
tony on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

You're missing something. Google video pentagon 9/11.
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

> I find it difficult to understand why there is no cctv of the object/plane that crashed into the pentagon...

you say object/plane. Does this mean you are not convinced the plane hit it? In which case what did happen to it and all the passengers?

> not even a mobile camera pic/video ,nothing ..unless im missing something

yes you are.
Jonny2vests - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:
> (In reply to itsThere)
>
> Fair points indeed, apart from the fact that building 7 was never hit by a plane. Building 7 was partially on fire for 7 hours and then uniformaly collapsed at the speed if gravity exactly like its two neighbouring buildings. I can't help but think that that is a pretty unfeasible thing to happen...

I think you might be confusing 'what you don't understand', with 'unfeasible'.
needvert on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to GrahamD:

I watched the video the OP linked. That's about all the information I'm going on.

Some parts of it seemed far fetched, like the fire department being in on it.

It all seems a rather elaborate setup, involving even the fire department, and possibly conceived in the 80s when the building was made - possibly laced with explosives or 'nano' thermite then.

Given as the OP says, few realise that a third building fell down, I wonder what the motivation was? I was unclear on that.

With a high density area like that, you cherry pick witnesses and you can make up all kinds of rubbish.


And if you're in the business of conducting conspiracies, I dare say you'd focus your attention on things that didn't leave a huge pile of evidence behind or require massive cooperation and secrecy to pull off.
mark s - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: the big name conspiracy nuts concerning 9/11 have realised the evidence for an inside job is just not there.they have given up,its just the youtube hero's who are like the stuck records.
If there was any truth in the silly claims there would be court cases going on all the time.

How they even began to think anyone would listen to them why they think the planes were missiles or even holograms.
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to needvert:
> I'm not saying there aren't real conspiracies out there, I think there probably are - given how history is full of deceit.

I find those two statements contradictory. We only know about the deceit because people found out about it. Conspiracies somehow remain covered up to the extend that the only people who know the "truth" are the conspiracy theorists.

I am convinced there are no conspiracies simply because those in power are bafoons like this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

and this
http://www.trump.com/

who couldn't mount a conspiracy for toffee.

The idea that thousands of government employees are also in on it is laughable.
Stuart William - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to needvert)
> [...]
>
> I find those two statements contradictory. We only know about the deceit because people found out about it. Conspiracies somehow remain covered up to the extend that the only people who know the "truth" are the conspiracy theorists.

I think that your definition of "conspiracy" needs some major revision. History is full of examples of major conspiracies; just because we found out about them or they failed doesn't stop them being conspiracies and as such there must surely be examples that were never discovered. Not necessarily implying that 9/11 was one of these though.
redsonja - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum: agreed. im not sure what to think really. i dont think the bush administration were clever enough to plan and carry out all this. there again im not sure a maniac like bin laden could either.
Rampikino - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to EeeByGum) agreed. im not sure what to think really. i dont think the bush administration were clever enough to plan and carry out all this. there again im not sure a maniac like bin laden could either.


Consider this.

To pull this off from OBL point of view = Money + Willing Religious Fanatical Maniacs

To pull this off from George Bush point of view = Blimey where do I start?
colina - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to colina)
>
> [...]
>
> you say object/plane. Does this mean you are not convinced the plane hit it? In which case what did happen to it and all the passengers?
>
> [...]
>
> yes you are.




you've not read my post correctly ,im not saying nothing hit the pentagon i'm sure it was a plane, .there are 1000s of vids on planes that hit the twin towers however I have seen no video of a plane hitting the pentagon and that's it.
if you could post me a youtube link or video clip that shows a plane flying towards or hitting the pentagon then this will clear it up for me
.
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to EeeByGum) agreed. im not sure what to think really. i dont think the bush administration were clever enough to plan and carry out all this. there again im not sure a maniac like bin laden could either.

I dunno. Hijacking a plane was as easy as pie back in those days. The attack was simplicity itself.
a lakeland climber on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:

OK. Which of these scenarios do you think is more likely?

1. A small committed group of people with little or no regard for either their own lives or that of others takes advantage of lax security to hijack a number of planes and use them as weapons in an attack on soft targets.

2. A clandestine group working within the government arranges to demolish those same soft targets by planting large amounts of explosives in buildings that are in constant use without attracting any suspicion then arranging for a group similar to that mentioned in scenario #1 to act as the "trigger" and divert attention.

ALC
John_Hat - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:
> (In reply to heidi123)
> [...]
>
>
> Consider this.
>
> To pull this off from OBL point of view = Money + Willing Religious Fanatical Maniacs
>
> To pull this off from George Bush point of view = Blimey where do I start?

Actually, when it comes to money and religious fanatics, George Bush was short of neither.

Or was that your point?
jkarran - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:

> ...im not sure what to think really. i dont think the bush administration were clever enough to plan and carry out all this. there again im not sure a maniac like bin laden could either.

Which part of what happened required exceptional intelligence? In essence it was a very simple plan very well executed. There's doubtless an element of luck involved in that but it's also important to remember it happened in a somewhat more relaxed security environment.
jk
tony on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:
> you've not read my post correctly ,im not saying nothing hit the pentagon i'm sure it was a plane, .there are 1000s of vids on planes that hit the twin towers however I have seen no video of a plane hitting the pentagon and that's it.

The fact that you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try my google search I suggested before lunch.
Rampikino - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to John_Hat:

No.

To pull this off from George Bush's point of view would require an awful lot more than money and a handful of willing religious fanatical maniacs.
colina - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to colina)
> [...]
>
> The fact that you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try my google search I suggested before lunch.

tried that tony before lunch and after lunch ,help me out here and send me the link .thanks
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

> if you could post me a youtube link or video clip that shows a plane flying towards or hitting the pentagon then this will clear it up for me
> .

firstly why do you expect others to do the searching for you and secondly exactly what would it clear up?
redsonja - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran: i meant to think of it all in the first place! and to carry it out with the precision they did. especially if it was a conspiracy
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to colina)
> [...]
>
> The fact that you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try my google search I suggested before lunch.

I really don't know why you bother..

The conspiracy theorists will believe any flimsy unreliable story that backs up their story.. anything that supports the official line is evidence of just how far the conspiracy goes.. so you can't win..


ads.ukclimbing.com
colina - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to colina)
>
> [...]
>
> firstly why do you expect others to do the searching for you and secondly exactly what would it clear up?

no need to get stroppy old son.I don't expect others to do the searching for me.i have tried and found nothing that's why I am asking tony to send me the link. he has obviously seen it .
re clearing it up it would be good to see wot exactly hit the pentagon.
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> I really don't know why you bother..

amusement and fascination with how some people think. Apart from anything else if i really thought the US gov had done that to itself i would be a tad wary about announcing i have proof in case i experience a sudden accident or trip to Guantanamo.

Has Buzby been back or is this a troll.



IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence..

People saw the plane hit.. noone saw a ruddy great cruise missile zoom in.. it'd be a risk to assume that EVERYONE in the area was in on it from the start..
Rampikino - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:

As I understand it...

When the WTC was first car bombed in 1993, the idea was to knock one of them down to fall into the other. So the idea was not new.

When Yousef, one of the perpetrators was brought to justice, he was flown back over New York to make the point that the towers were still there, whereupon he allegedly said;

“They wouldn't be if I had enough money and enough explosives."
tony on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> tried that tony before lunch and after lunch ,help me out here and send me the link .thanks

Seriously? You've used that well known search engine to find video of something hitting the Pentagon, and found nothing? You do the search and get 0 hits?
redsonja - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to a lakeland climber: well yeah. its much more likely to have been a terrorist attack. but was their security so lax? i was in the states several times before 9/11 and found security to be really tight?
colina - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
as I said tony have not seen any clear video of a plane hitting the pentagon.
there are 1000s of hits on this ,however have not seen anything resembling a plane on any footage I have seen.
im not going to debate this anymore as its going off tangent and I have no wish to get into a discussion on conspiracy theories,(4 the record I think it was a terrorist attack)
however if anyone has a video clearly showing a plane ,it would be good to see cause I haven't found one YET.
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina: Go on - I will bite

Here are some pictures of the wreckage from the plane:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/757-americanlogo.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04.jpg
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/pentagon1.jpg

Presumably, these were places on the scene by special agents immediately after the missile strike?
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:
> its much more likely to have been a terrorist attack. but was their security so lax?

When I flew home from San Francisco via New York, I had a couple of hours to burn at JFK. My explorations from the gate where I landed lead me to the taxi rank of the airport. No security. No passport control. Nothing. And the flight to London left from the gate next to the gate I landed at. I ended up having to give my green card to the stewardess!
a lakeland climber on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to heidi123:

(from memory) There used to be a rule where you could take a 4" blade on board but not a 6" or something like that. Remember Americans used to treat internal flights pretty much like buses: turn up, pay, get on.

ALC
colina - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

not quite sure why you mention a missile strike.ive not mentioned missiles at all.thanks for finding the pics ,a good find. .
The pics certainly show wreckage from a plane .
At the risk of repeating myself video footage would have been good .thanks anyway
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

> At the risk of repeating myself video footage would have been good .thanks anyway

well search for it. It really isnt hard.
Although then i expect some complaints about how it isnt perfect quality and ignoring the fact a)cctv rarely is and b)even when working well isnt intended for capturing planes etc.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina: I'm presuming there were some people on that plane that are no longer with us. I doubt their grieving families are all paid actors.
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina: This is the unofficial story... a cruise missile.. they even painted it in American Airlines colours...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPWLqc5T20

Honestly.. crackpots..
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: I haven't read any of the comments on this post but will say this.

Anyone who has researched 9/11, and still believes the official story, has not researched enough.

The evidence refuting the official story is overwhelming.
GrahamD - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

So "overwhelming" that noone except a few fruitcakes with too much time on their hands believe it sort of "overwhelming" ?
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) I haven't read any of the comments on this post but will say this.
>
> Anyone who has researched 9/11, and still believes the official story, has not researched enough.
>
> The evidence refuting the official story is overwhelming.

This is just superb. You've made my day..

The evidence supporting the official story is pretty strong.. like the 59 passengers and crew who are now missing...

Plane wreckage..

Missing plane..

Eye witness reports..
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to GrahamD: "...A few..." - maybe you should do a bit more research.

The paradigm has shifted.

IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Brilliant... lets reply being all vague.. it makes you look really clever... or just unquestioning ignorance..

So where is this plane? the people?
In reply to Sircumfrins: It's funny, I remember your name because last year you were linking to holocaust denial sites and suggesting people should do "research" there.

You have, lets be charitable, "interesting" ideas about what research means.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: How was it done and who was behind it? Please, don't be coy, enquiring minds are open to the truth.
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Please, as if I had time to spend refuting every person that responds to my ignorant post.
I'll find a link to over 300 facts about 9-11 if you care to read?
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:

> At the risk of repeating myself video footage would have been good .thanks anyway

Maybe there isn't any. Would that be a conspiracy in itself?
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Yeah sure.. 'facts'.. sound like Rafa...

Just answer my questions re the plane and the missing people..

It just seems preposterous that it was easier to use a cruise missile.. instead of a plane.. they then made sure nobody saw anything.. and made a plane dissapear.. with 59 innocent people on board...


I can just see the argument that security was lacking to enable such attacks so they could respond.. just.. I don't buy it, but I see the reasoning..

But to stage all this?
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> Plane wreckage..
>
> Missing plane..
>
> Eye witness reports..

My in-laws are into this crap. According to them, the above are all in on it and we have all been dupped by the press.... who are also all in on it! I really didn't expect my in-laws to be fruitcakes and the ensuing argument ended up being my first Christmas bust up!
EeeByGum - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Do you really believe this idiot had the brain power to pull of such an act?

http://thebobofiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/george-bush-no-brains.jpg

And for the hundreds of people who would also have been involved to say absolutely nothing?

I mean - we found out about the US torturing prisoners. We found out about associates of Regan selling missiles to Iran. We found out about Clinton's personal interests! The list goes on and on.

Yet so far, no one has said anything. And if there is one thing humans are rubbish at... it is keeping secrets. It just doesn't add up.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> My in-laws are into this crap. According to them, the above are all in on it and we have all been dupped by the press.... who are also all in on it! I really didn't expect my in-laws to be fruitcakes and the ensuing argument ended up being my first Christmas bust up!

I honestly don't know anyone who actually belives the offical conspiracy theory put out by the mainstream media, I read a few wacked out nut jobs on here still believe that fairytale, too much X factor no doublt.
tony on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) Do you really believe this idiot had the brain power to pull of such an act?

The conspiracy theory that says it was all a CIA job was in fact a rumour started by the CIA in an attempt to convince people that they're not actually a bunch of incompetents for whom a brewery would be challenging environment for an alcohol-enhanced soiree.
Mikkel - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to a lakeland climber:
flew out of Heathrow Saturday, they had signs saying no blades over 4" next to the rules about liquids.
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: I know how this forum operates and have learned from previous mistakes. There is no way I can I can continue to answer people because I prefer not to spend too much time arguing with people online.
I'll post some links that I believe some people will find interesting soon.
I would like to encourage people to look at photos of the towers collapsing and notice that within seconds you have massive ejections of heavy debris that are thrown 100's of feet away from the tower.
What force could do this? Why is concrete immediately pulverised to dust? Why does the building collapse through the area of most resistance?
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: I was going to mention Dr Judy Wood. There is a good interview with her on richplanet which i'll post a link too.
elsewhere on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
Normally building are designed to withstand burning offices (fixtures, furniture etc). If the twin towers didn't come down due to fire, how did the designers in the sixties and the builders in the late sixties/early seventies manage to make it resit tonnes of burning jet fuel thirty years later?
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: You've ignored my questions..
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Sircumfrins:

They won't bother reading it, if you can watch over a million tons of steel turn into dust, and think that some planes could do that, well they'll just see what you're trying to tell them is insane, because the weapons of mass distruction which could do that kind of job well they just don't exist, same with cold fusion, anti gravity, etc.

Sir Chasm - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Steel turning to dust? Fascinating, tell us more.
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: OK.. where did the plane go for the pentagon..

I do think planes hitting a tower block full of fuel causing a huge explosion and serious fire could cause that.
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> They won't bother reading it, if you can watch over a million tons of steel turn into dust,

a million tons of steel? Really?
There might not be some other materials involved?

> and think that some planes could do that,

see above.

> because the weapons of mass distruction which could do that kind of job well they just don't exist,

oh what WMD do you have in mind?

> same with cold fusion, anti gravity, etc.

oh you have to be trolling.
off-duty - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> They won't bother reading it, if you can watch over a million tons of steel turn into dust, and think that some planes could do that, well they'll just see what you're trying to tell them is insane, because the weapons of mass distruction which could do that kind of job well they just don't exist, same with cold fusion, anti gravity, etc.

Are you suggesting that not only was 9/11 an inside job, but "they" used a top secret weapon system - which has never been seen deployed in war - to destroy the towers?
In reply to johnj:
> because the weapons of mass distruction which could do that kind of job well they just don't exist,

How do these differ from weapons of mass destruction? Sounds intriguing...
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to TobyA:

well the whole WMD story from the start was a smokescreen, for example gas doesn't destroy anything it kills people.

I've been reading about this stuff for a loooooooooong time now

If you want to read the psyop, go here

http://www.veteranstoday.com/category/911-and-terror-war/

if you want to read, the so called last man standing, as already posted on this thread, hence the nobody reads this stuff

go here

http://www.drjudywood.co.uk/

all I can say is, the offical story is so full of holes

I don't know what the truth is, but the links I've posted pose some very intresting questions, If you think the links are bogus well thats your call.

Whole can of worms time!
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> I was going to mention Dr Judy Wood. There is a good interview with her on richplanet which i'll post a link too.

She's a CIA operative. This blog says so, so it must be true http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/dr-judy-wood-911-gatekeeper-extraordinaire/
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> well the whole WMD story from the start was a smokescreen, for example gas doesn't destroy anything it kills people.

well thats ok then.

> Whole can of worms time!

can you get to the specifics of how the WTC was destroyed. You seemed to be indicating it was cause by a WMD, so what was it?
gritrash0 - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Although the 'official' narrative about 911 has problems I think one of the big issues is the inability for the government agencies involved to say 'we don't know'. The public demands answers when events such as this happen and we have been offered a very likely scenario. Perhaps someone will come up with an evidence-backed and realistic alternative but at the moment I see most people arguing over semantics and using small areas of doubt to discredit the official major conclusions.
I suggest you look into the history of Al-Qaeda and see that there is an explanation as to who is to blame for many of the well armed, well trained and formerly well financed islamic extremist groups seeking to commit 'terrorist attacks' on the West. Not to mention who is pushing large numbers of disaffected people who's lives and countries have been ruined towards supporting these groups.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to johnj)
>

> can you get to the specifics of how the WTC was destroyed. You seemed to be indicating it was cause by a WMD, so what was it?

Yes, but I'd rather you did the reading on the links rather than making assumptions of my assumptions, so for the meantime like them real big fish I'll refer to the as WMD
In reply to dissonance:
> You seemed to be indicating it was cause by a WMD, so what was it?

Cans of worms! Many cans of genetically modified super CIA wood worms specially trained to eat the structures of the buildings from the inside out!
Eric9Points - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

Cheers.

Fascinating article on how Ossama Bin Laden actually died in 2001 and the operation to assassinate him last year was a ploy to get Obama re elected.

The that other site revealed a lot I didn't know about, Directed energy weapons for example.

You don't honestly believe any of that shite do you?
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Eric9Points:

I'd say I believe it a lot more than some radical dudes with box cutters overpowered planes full of people, then in 75% of the case foxed the worlds best air defence system and the managed to hit targets 2 which completed turned to dust, then WTC7 which was the headquarters for the whole shooting match which was completely over engineered just fell down cos someone had been smoking a big bong in the basement, and then in the pentangle the ones who might have blown the whistle all got squished.
Eric9Points - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

Aye, fair enough.


Cheers.
Fraser on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> ...within seconds you have massive ejections of heavy debris that are thrown 100's of feet away from the tower. What force could do this?

Have you ever watched a controlled demolition of a building? It's not that unusual for debris to be thrown great distances. A woman in Glasgow was killed a few years ago when they demolished one of the towers in the Gorbals in Glasgow.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/family-sues-over-gorbals-blast-mother-61-died-after...

She was hundreds of feet away in the so-called 'safe zone'. Maybe that was a conspiracy too for her non-payment of Council tax?


> Why is concrete immediately pulverised to dust?

Why do you assume it's concrete dust you are seeing?


> Why does the building collapse through the area of most resistance?

Probably because the initial impact so seriously compromised the structure locally or a column(s) had defective fire proofing on it and collapsed well within its designed period of fire resistance, thereby causing a sudden massive increase in point load on the floor below, thereby increasing the rapid overall collapse of the building/buildings. It's not rocket science, just simple construction deficiencies and basic engineering.

Yes, it could all have been done by a bunch of munchkins in black ninja suits and special, secret weapons, but seriously...what are the chances compared to the obvious explanation? Jeez!
Sir Chasm - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Don't tease us, come on, who do you think was behind it and how did they do it?
Father Noel Furlong on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Fraser:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)

> She was hundreds of feet away in the so-called 'safe zone'. Maybe that was a conspiracy too for her non-payment of Council tax?


Not wanting to be overly reactive but somone on here might find that last statement as a bit....well insensitive....
off-duty - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> I'd say I believe it a lot more than some radical dudes with box cutters overpowered planes full of people, then in 75% of the case foxed the worlds best air defence system and the managed to hit targets 2 which completed turned to dust, then WTC7 which was the headquarters for the whole shooting match which was completely over engineered just fell down cos someone had been smoking a bigI bong in the basement, and then in the pentangle the ones who might have blown the whistle all got squished.


Fair enough. Rather than believe it was a horrific twist to the common tried and tested terrorist tactic of hijacking aircraft to target their established enemies of the USA, you choose to believe it was a massive multi-agency conspiracy to kill the US' own citizens deploying top secret weapons systems never seen before or since on the battlefield with the conspirators themselves assassinated by "super" conspirators, and all protected by a wall of silence.
Just to make sure I understand you right?
Fraser on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Fair point, sorry. It was supposed to illustrate my contempt for a numpty's rationale.
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Hey johnj. As I mentioned above there is no point posting on this topic as these people have already made up there mind...which is extremely closed minded of them.
I'm always reading about things that can potentially shatter my current world view. I believe that's the only way to live.
I don't believe but KNOW the official story is ridiculously flawed and encourage others to investigate 9-11.
It's the most tragic and important event in my generation and it's vitally important to know the truth as specific agendas continue to be pushed because of it.
I'll put some links up after my climbing session...although I know the majority of people won't look at them...yet will continue to tow the line.
You know who you are.
Father Noel Furlong on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Fraser:

Couldn't agree more....some real pish being posted on this subject!
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Fraser: So what are you saying? It was a controlled demolition?
tony on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to johnj) Don't tease us, come on, who do you think was behind it and how did they do it?

Oh do keep up! It was either Judy Wood and her directed energy weapons, or it was Donald Fox and his mini-nukes, or it was the CIA with their thermite. It most definitely wasn't a bunch of crazed nutters in hijacked planes, because no-one saw anything that might suggest that to be the case.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ok, as you won't believe me anyway, here goes.

The technolgy whilst based on Telsa work, they just can't make it under earths gravity, so the Nazis of course who else whould it be developed anti gravity in about 34, research maybe the Nazi bell. Basically if you understand magnets well thats all it is, so off the went into outer space and also on the secret mooooooooooon bases, they say the KFC up there tastes mighty fine, to make WMD. Then beacause they had developed looking glass technology, in 1971 they discovered that on 9/11 bad shit was going to happen, what they didn't know at that point was they were looking at a time line, not all of future just a timeline.........




Fraser on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> people have already made up there [sic] mind

Well it seems we agree on one thing!
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: I think it is you who is closed minded...

I sat and watched the planes hit..

It seems a very elaborate system to fake something which could just have been explained on a bomb planted by terrorists..

You've still not answered the question regarding the missing plane, flight 77?
Sir Chasm - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: You shouldn't mock the afflicted, mental health problems are more common than you think.
Jonny2vests - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to johnj) Hey johnj. As I mentioned above there is no point posting on this topic as these people have already made up there mind...which is extremely closed minded of them.
> I'm always reading about things that can potentially shatter my current world view. I believe that's the only way to live.

I could equally accuse you of having a closed mind.

For me, the way to approach any subject is with a rational and skeptical head, remember that not all opinions are equal and keep in mind that when there are competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one (Occam's razor).

Actively seeking out things that 'can shatter your world view', is obviously going to bias your reasoning somewhat.

off-duty - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> [...]
>
> I could equally accuse you of having a closed mind.
>
> For me, the way to approach any subject is with a rational and skeptical head, remember that not all opinions are equal and keep in mind that when there are competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one (Occam's razor).
>
> Actively seeking out things that 'can shatter your world view', is obviously going to bias your reasoning somewhat.

Stop trying to introduce reason and rationality to this discussion. Maybe ask about him about the holocaust ...
stewieatb on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I find if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
>
> Fair enough. Rather than believe it was a horrific twist to the common tried and tested terrorist tactic of hijacking aircraft to target their established enemies of the USA, you choose to believe it was a massive multi-agency conspiracy to kill the US' own citizens deploying top secret weapons systems never seen before or since on the battlefield with the conspirators themselves assassinated by "super" conspirators, and all protected by a wall of silence.

> Just to make sure I understand you right?

I may have believed the story if the buildings had been damaged in the way that you would have expected, i.e partial faliure, not as what happened they turned to dust, and there was a big hole at the bottom, I'd like to know where the 100 odd floors went to and why they didn't follow the path of least resistance and end up in a big pile of rubble. You seem to be saying I'm implying something, I can give you theories like your rather silly one for as long as you want.

Can you explain where the few million tons of builings went to?


IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I may have believed the story if the buildings had been damaged in the way that you would have expected, i.e partial faliure, not as what happened they turned to dust, and there was a big hole at the bottom, I'd like to know where the 100 odd floors went to and why they didn't follow the path of least resistance and end up in a big pile of rubble. You seem to be saying I'm implying something, I can give you theories like your rather silly one for as long as you want.
>
> Can you explain where the few million tons of builings went to?

It was all there.. that's why a decade later they still haven't finished redeveloping the site..
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> It was all there...

For real, roflmao!
off-duty - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

Fair enough you clearly saw something different from me. When I watched the buildings collapse I should have seen them vanishing.

I guess the 1.2 million tons removed don't count, or aren't enough or something.

Still now they've got a weapon that can convert all that mass into nothing shouldn't we be expecting free energy production now?
Eric9Points - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>

>
> Can you explain where the few million tons of builings went to?

The total mass of both Towers was 1.5 million tonnes: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

There was a big pile of rubble afterwards, I'm not sure what you're on about.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> Fair enough you clearly saw something different from me. When I watched the buildings collapse I should have seen them vanishing.
>

so you didn't seem rising dust like a nuke had go off, effectively yes the shape of the structure disapears, not really a collaspe in the conventional sense

> I guess the 1.2 million tons removed don't count, or aren't enough or something.
>

No you're guessing, like pin the tail on the donkey?

> Still now they've got a weapon that can convert all that mass into nothing shouldn't we be expecting free energy production now?

I think before we can understand that we need to understand how to forgive rather than blowing the shit out of the place and killing folk, whole other subject.
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Dust goes up.. spreads out..


> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> so you didn't seem rising dust like a nuke had go off, effectively yes the shape of the structure disapears, not really a collaspe in the conventional sense
>
> [...]
>
> No you're guessing, like pin the tail on the donkey?
>
> [...]
>
> I think before we can understand that we need to understand how to forgive rather than blowing the shit out of the place and killing folk, whole other subject.

johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj) Dust goes up.. spreads out..
>
>
> [...]

I don't understand your point have you missed some bits out?
off-duty - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> so you didn't seem rising dust like a nuke had go off, effectively yes the shape of the structure disapears, not really a collaspe in the conventional sense
>

You do know the dust cloud isn't a result of the bomb but as a result of the bombs effect - eg collapsing structures and massive displacement of air. Like, say when a 110 story building collapses...


>
> No you're guessing, like pin the tail on the donkey?
>

Ah, while your source for it "disappearing" is YouTube? I was actually going off the figures from the companies employed to shift the rubble.

>
> I think before we can understand that we need to understand how to forgive rather than blowing the shit out of the place and killing folk, whole other subject.

A whole other subject it might be, but it is entirely predicated on your suggestion that this matter "deconverter" system exists and is therefore yet another thing that is not only being kept secret by the conspirators, but also being used in one gigantic attack on the US own citizens, rather than in any of the various wars the US are involved in, or used to produce energy and shift the power balance massively in favour of those who own it.

Me - I'm still going with the hi-jackers.
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Mushroom cloud..

That's just a standard cloud column.. you see it in upwelling events.. goes up.. spreads out.. you even see the building slowly collapse on itself..
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> You do know the dust cloud isn't a result of the bomb but as a result of the bombs effect - eg collapsing structures and massive displacement of air. Like, say when a 110 story building collapses...
>
Will thats what you think, many others probably more qualified and also less qualified would disagree
>
> [...]
>
> Ah, while your source for it "disappearing" is YouTube? I was actually going off the figures from the companies employed to shift the rubble.
>
> [...]
This is your assuption, if you'd bothered to read the links i posted in any detail you'd have seen more.
But if we're going to talk about youtube why is it there there is so much breakdwon on there but none on the TV, but we get endless of slo-mo football of somebody tripping up? something to hide perhaps?

>
> A whole other subject it might be, but it is entirely predicated on your suggestion that this matter "deconverter" system exists and is therefore yet another thing that is not only being kept secret by the conspirators, but also being used in one gigantic attack on the US own citizens, rather than in any of the various wars the US are involved in, or used to produce energy and shift the power balance massively in favour of those who own it.
>
Well yes if they used it in war well then others would start to develop it, keep em in the dark ages much easier to manage

> Me - I'm still going with the hi-jackers.

Fair enough, doesn't mean i have to
dissonance - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> I'd say I believe it a lot more than some radical dudes with box cutters overpowered planes full of people,

not that difficult. Up until that point if you got hijacked then the odds were you would just be bored for a couple of days. That and they wouldnt be fighting the

> then in 75% of the case foxed the worlds best air defence system

75%?
Also where does this claim of best air defence system come from. Possibly against the Russians but not designed for internal use.

> and the managed to hit targets 2 which completed turned to dust,

they didnt.

> then WTC7 which was the headquarters for the whole shooting match

wait a second. Are you claiming WTC7 was the base for the government ninjas?
Dunno about anyone else but if i was planning to either blow buildings up/use space lasers I would be making the nerve centre a tad further away.

> pentangle the ones who might have blown the whistle all got squished.

pentagon even. Interesting most of the 125 were civilians.
You seem to be implying that the most of the people involved were killed off, guess it makes the reason no one squeals easier to claim but has a few flaws. Like why they didnt notice there was something aimed at them and for those who killed the first lot why they didnt get paranoid that someone else might be after them.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:

'Slowly collaspe', no it would have had to follow the laws of motion, that one just kept falling at a uniform rate, as the mass of the tower above reduces as its falling the strength of the lower becomes stronger as its no longer load bearing, not in this case it kept falling through itsself well it doesnt fall through itself more like a firework burning down and pluming out, just all wrong.
Fraser on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> Can you explain where the few million tons of builings went to?

Umm, well a quick google reveals the towers had 7 underground levels, so I'd guess all of that space was filled up. The rest was spread all around the ground, exactly as you'd expect really and as is shown on the thousands of photos available to view online. If you think about it, most buildings are more void than solid, so what appears a big monolith on the outside is in reality a lot 'less' when broken down to its constituent parts and all the voids removed. Like I said before it's pretty simple. You've over analysing it and looking for conspiracies.

You're welcome to do so of course, but you can't be surprised when folk POINT OUT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> [...]
>
> not that difficult. Up until that point if you got hijacked then the odds were you would just be bored for a couple of days. That and they wouldnt be fighting the
>
> [...]
>
> 75%?
> Also where does this claim of best air defence system come from. Possibly against the Russians but not designed for internal use.
>
> [...]
>
> they didnt.
>
> [...]
>
> wait a second. Are you claiming WTC7 was the base for the government ninjas?
> Dunno about anyone else but if i was planning to either blow buildings up/use space lasers I would be making the nerve centre a tad further away.
>
> [...]
>
> pentagon even. Interesting most of the 125 were civilians.
> You seem to be implying that the most of the people involved were killed off, guess it makes the reason no one squeals easier to claim but has a few flaws. Like why they didnt notice there was something aimed at them and for those who killed the first lot why they didnt get paranoid that someone else might be after them.

This is what happens on here, the group think agrees one thing then if there is a view outside that more and more people come in with broken down bits of others statments to somebody else at a differnet time to try and find some relievance. Until folk go away or whatever. Nothing what anyone has said has changed probably anybodies view.
Sir Chasm - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Then why not try giving a coherent idea of what you think happened (preferably in English)?
Fraser on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

Okay, I understand the first 8 words there, but after that it's gibberish. Can you rephrase it so we can understand what you're trying to say?
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think that if those buildings had not have been destroyed when the planes hit, and there was only a partial failure, people may have thought, you know what isn't it time that we gave peace a chance, crazy radical nut jobs are prepared to die crashing planes like that man you can never ever win against that. Lets have a go at increasing the peace eh?

However too much money on it so down they came, all insured anyway, nice little war to fight, it just didn't look real more like a sci-fi movie bout a war in outer space.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Fraser:

More and more people want to tell me I'm wrong because i don't agree with the larger peer group.
Bruce Hooker - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> as the mass of the tower above reduces as its falling the strength of the lower becomes stronger as its no longer load bearing,

It doesn't though, it build up layer upon layer as it all comes down... matter doesn't disappear, except a bit of dust thrown out sideways. This is all very clear in the news films of the time - we saw them often enough for days on end.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But it should all go out side ways, does a rock falling off the top of a mountain destroy the mountain?
In reply to johnj:

> This is what happens on here, the group think agrees one thing

Yep, like on gravity, antibiotics, the grade of Three Pebble Slab etc.

But back on subject, have you read the excellent book "The Looming Towers" by Lawrence Wright? It's great and fascinating. You'd probably enjoy it.


johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to TobyA:

No i haven't, you've told me about this one before, I would read it if I had a copy.
Bruce Hooker - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

I don't know if you saw the film of the big rock fall on the Petit Dru a while ago.... it looked quite a bit like the films of the buildings collapsing, especially the dust cloud. Although in fact it was different as rock is solid, not empty structures. What happened was the floors just collapsed one on top of the others. The vertical structures were beams than concertinaed or went sideways. The momentum once the buildings started falling would have been colossal, once underway no structure could have resisted. The delay was the time it took for the heat to weaken the vertical structures, destroying the concrete casings and heating the steel inside until it became incapable of supporting the load.

As I said the procedure was very clear from the news film of the time.

PS. I don't think I can be considered as belonging to the ukc peer group, there aren't many subjects I agree with the majority on... which doesn't prove anything much I'll grant you.... I could be in the plot too, but crafty like.
Sir Chasm - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Now we're getting somewhere, so the towers were rigged to be demolished (or the energy weapon was ready) in case the planes didn't do the job? So was the US government behind the hijackings or merely aware they were going to happen?
In reply to johnj: I'd lend you mine if i was local. Its quite a well known book now so maybe your local library has a copy or could get one? Alternatively, they're only 8 quid with free delivery on Amazon now as its a paperback.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

With regards to the momentum it started from 0 mph x gravity, so it may have broken a few floors, at that point the falling floors would have different vectors from straight down due to all the anglular upward force of uprights still in place, plus you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength so the acceleration would not be constant. At maybe mid height everything would have started going sideways, law of entropy and all that path of least resistance, and you'd have probably be left with half a tower.

But then it wouldn't have even started with that force, the weakened steel would have partailly collasped and at most it would have bent, that fuel burns out like a flash when in the open hardly time to do any real damage

I've been watching the videos for a long time now Bruce, I'm not saying I know what happened, I just can't see it how the mainstream do anymore just looks so obvious that aditional factors were required for total distruction.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to TobyA: Cheers anyway, I will try and get to it.
off-duty - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Fraser)
>
> More and more people want to tell me I'm wrong because i don't agree with the larger peer group.

I don't care about the size of your peer group. I care about the tenuous nature of your theory and the extremely farfetched (and ill thought through) consequences and implications of magic matter destroyers and self destructing massive numbers of multi-agency conspirators, able to not just kill their own side but then kill each other.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Sir Chasm:

You're asking me questions that I have no way of knowing the answer to, all I can say is if a plot so clever that could destroy the world trade centre could be hatched don't you think somebody in the oh so intelegence savvy switched rulers of the first world would have known about it?
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> You're asking me questions that I have no way of knowing the answer to, all I can say is if a plot so clever that could destroy the world trade centre could be hatched don't you think somebody in the oh so intelegence savvy switched rulers of the first world would have known about it?

eh? you are assuming 100% capture of info..
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to off-duty:

So you're the babalon yeah? well you've jumped to all the wrong conclusions, they're not my theories they are theories that you can read about in the free western world.

I just don't buy the current can of worms.
Bruce Hooker - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> plus you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength so the acceleration would not be constant.

You have already said that but it is not exact (I've already said this too) as the weight of the collapsing structure can't evaporate, it builds up. No need for using words like entropy and vectors, they add nothing and are not appropriate.... All the forces are vertically down (gravity) countered by the upward force of the remaining structure lower down beneath the accelerating and ever increasing mass coming down. Momentum is the key.

It started building up as soon as the floors directly affected by the fires collapsed, due to the vertical structures (steel beams cased in concrete) buckling when they heated beyond a temperature which reduced their resistance to less than the weight bearing down on them. This weight increased floor by floor, but more important the kinetic energy developed (square of velocity) made all resistance impossible, as the daleks would say.
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:

You'd need about a 2% capture rate to sniff that one, as soon as the job was done all the players were up there for the world to see, done and dusted.
Jim Brooke - on 04 Feb 2013
I love it when people think "research" means reading websites...
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So you can state how a tower fell without even using a simple terms like vetor, I can see why you quote the Daleks lol.
ads.ukclimbing.com
stroppygob - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to colina:
> (In reply to buzby78)
> I find it difficult to understand why there is no cctv of the object/plane that crashed into the pentagon...


Scud missile, flying too fast. Ordered by Dick Cheney.Who is a reptoid.

Jonny2vests - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Jim Brooke:
> I love it when people think "research" means reading websites...

Haha. I totally agree.
itsThere on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: "0 mph x gravity" mph and gravity dont mix get your units right.

"anglular upward force " there is no angular force since this isnt a rotating mass, just force.

the base would not increase in strength just change in position as the rubble built up.

everything would not just start to go sideways, newtons second law.

the law of entropy would say it falls straight down because the adjacent is always shorter than the hypotenuse. this gives the path of least resistance to be down.

half a tower, just think about that one again.

bent steel is buggered steel, bend a tube on your bike it wont be fun when it fails.

a sudden change in temp can do damage since the heat cant be dissipated. then the big big fire did the rest.

IF your going to poke fun at other users, sort your own posts out first.
any corrections welcome.
Jonny2vests - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Fraser)
>
> More and more people want to tell me I'm wrong because i don't agree with the larger peer group.

You have an opinion. It differs from most others.

Whilst everyone should have the right to express an opinion, they should also be prepared to be told its pish when it doesn't pass simple, intuitive (to most) tests based on reason, logic and evidence.

If people like you knew how hard it was to keep secrets, there probably wouldn't be any conspiracy theories at all.
Sircumfrins - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Here is the Dr Judy Wood interview:
Part 1: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=76&part=1

Then click "Click to watch next part of the show"

Part 2: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=78&part=1

Then click "Click to watch next part of the show"

I found the section on burnt out cars (very far away from the collapsing towers) extremely interesting. This phenomena in it's own right should raise alarms as the people were not incinerated by the dust clouds however certain makes of cars were burnt (and rusted) beyond repair.

A truly fascinating interview.

I challenge you to watch the whole documentary and not have your point of view challenged.
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests: I was once in a talk.. someone spoke up saying they had a theory... an academic listened.. and then retorted.. 'that's not a theory.. no evidence supports it'
johnj on 04 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to itsThere:
> (In reply to johnj) "0 mph x gravity" mph and gravity dont mix get your units right.

that ones easy to understand standing start
>
> "anglular upward force " there is no angular force since this isnt a rotating mass, just force.
>
of course there is an angular force did you not see the top of the building twist we need to define direction

> the base would not increase in strength just change in position as the rubble built up.

it would increase in strength because you are reducing load from it
>
> everything would not just start to go sideways, newtons second law.
>
ok i'll give you that one, not everything would go sideways, but not in the assumed case would everything go down, newtons second law

> the law of entropy would say it falls straight down because the adjacent is always shorter than the hypotenuse. this gives the path of least resistance to be down.
>

but when down has something in the way which due to how it was built it gets stronger and stronger like a pyramid path of least resistance is not down

> half a tower, just think about that one again.

yeah you're right tower would have never started falling it would have bent first.
>
> bent steel is buggered steel, bend a tube on your bike it wont be fun when it fails.
>

no its not a spring bends all the time, depends what it was designed for

> a sudden change in temp can do damage since the heat cant be dissipated. then the big big fire did the rest.
>
yes every time our coal fire gets hot the chimney falls down and we have to build a new house

> IF your going to poke fun at other users, sort your own posts out first.
> any corrections welcome.

it's too easy that way, gotto have some banter with the daleks now.
IainRUK - on 04 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Incredulous...
http://911logic.wordpress.com/

You should read that..

Just superb...

Cars get burnt.. they melt..
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> You have an opinion. It differs from most others.
>
> Whilst everyone should have the right to express an opinion, they should also be prepared to be told its pish when it doesn't pass simple, intuitive (to most) tests based on reason, logic and evidence.
>

Yes I agree, why i think the silly tabloid tale is proper pish

> If people like you knew how hard it was to keep secrets, there probably wouldn't be any conspiracy theories at all.

This is why i can read all about how they probably did it, however the people with the real power, don't care cos most folk think how they did it is nuts. QED
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> able to not just kill their own side but then kill each other.

you would start getting suspicious about why the pension scheme appeared so good wouldnt you, after the orders came in to bump off someone lower down the chain of command.

The other bit that confuses me is what was the plan behind this. I am assuming it was to get Saddam in which case why didnt they plant some decent evidence framing him.
Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I read it. What's your point?
Why did the cars get burnt to such a degree when they were well away from any falling towers? Are you saying that embers set cars alight?

What do you think of this link?

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
Jim Brooke - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> the people with the real power, don't care cos most folk think how they did it is nuts. QED

Are you aware that this element of logic is common to all conspiracy theories? Is that just coincidence?
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Jim Brooke:

It's going to play a big part in it, that's what makes them what they are, people generally with some power over some others conspire to reach a certain outcome, and not all conspiracy theories are conspiracy, but some are, just the way of the world.



IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: I've changed my mind.. this is far more likely than 2 planes hitting the towers.. full of fuel.. causing huge explosions..

You've still not answered my question regarding flight 77? where did it go?

You've spent all day saying its directed energy.. star wars beams.. but where are the 59 people and flight 77?
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) I read it. What's your point?
> Why did the cars get burnt to such a degree when they were well away from any falling towers? Are you saying that embers set cars alight?
>
> What do you think of this link?
>
> http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

Photos of burnt out cars does not equal space laser. Don't you think it even slightly odd that there is no footage of the space laser doing its thing?
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Cars do burn to such a degree.. Have you watched a car burn? They burn very localised and very intensely..
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> [...]
>
> Photos of burnt out cars does not equal space laser. Don't you think it even slightly odd that there is no footage of the space laser doing its thing?

There was... the CIA got hold of all the footage...
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> [...]
>
> you would start getting suspicious about why the pension scheme appeared so good wouldnt you, after the orders came in to bump off someone lower down the chain of command.
>
> The other bit that confuses me is what was the plan behind this. I am assuming it was to get Saddam in which case why didnt they plant some decent evidence framing him.

That's it though..

Its like if they wanted to make it seem as though the terrorists blew up the twin towers.. why not just strap a load of explosives in the basements, bring them down and frame a group of terrorists.. nice neat package... instead they kidnap planes.. fly them into the buildings.. use undemonstrated space technology..

yet couldn't just hide a few barrels of anthrax and some uranium in the desert and find them a few months later..
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> There was... the CIA got hold of all the footage...

Oh. Bugger.

They had a big day, what with their office getting melted and everything too.
Jim Brooke - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

The point is not whether some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (of course they do, that's trivial). The point is about your logic. Either you ignore that argument altogether, or you have to accept that we are ruled by shape-shifting reptilian overlords, QED.
ads.ukclimbing.com
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Jim Brooke:

Can you explain how my logic links the possible use of classified Tesla based technology to the theories of David Icke?
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Jim Brooke)
>
> Can you explain how my logic links the possible use of classified Tesla based technology to the theories of David Icke?

You both live on the same planet.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to jonny2vests:

How about compared that to Tesla and Icke in one throw away comment, er, wow, what to say, I'm almost speechless... lol cheers!
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: It did not challenge me at all...

Not in the slightest, it left me with many questions..

Like mine to you about where Flight 77 is..
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> So you're the babalon yeah?

Well, the Babylon actually...

well you've jumped to all the wrong conclusions, they're not my theories they are theories that you can read about in the free western world.
>

I can also read Mad magazine, Private Eye and the Daily Mail, and I tend not to believe everything I read there either. And they have the benefit of editors and a reputation to maintain, rather than self publication (in all senses of the words).


> I just don't buy the current can of worms.

There's skepticism and there is wilful blindness. I take it Occam's razor is part of the conspiracy as well.
Jim Brooke - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

I already did. And I never mentioned David Icke - he's some crackpot who has go it ALL WRONG about the Reptilians.

Referring to 9/11, you presented the remarkable logical proof : "the people with the real power don't care cos most folk think how they did it [9/11] is nuts. QED".

So in referring to our overlord masters, I say "the shape shifting lizards with real power don't care cos most folk think how they do it [conceal themselves] is nuts. QED".
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> How about compared that to Tesla and Icke in one throw away comment

You talk funny. My head hurts.

mark s - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: let me guess,you also think the moon landings were faked.you think vacancies cause autism,you think the world leaders are on big family.aeroplanes are dropping mind control drugs on us.
You like to base your twisted beliefs on ideas with NO evidence or rational thought to support them.
You like to think you are amongst a special group of people who 'think out of the box' you are in on the secret.
Why not gather all your 9/11 evidence and present it to a government willing to listen,then you will be forever known as the man who took down the u.s superpower.
Every point you and your pal sircumalot makes is proven wrong by the people above who actually reads the facts and come to a rational decision.
The drum you 9/11 morons keep banging has worn out now and the big names have moved on and accepted it for what it was....a terrorist attack
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Jim Brooke:

You may not have mentioned Icke but he is credited mainly with your assumptions of my throw away comment about presentation of logical proof. Also you taking the quote of of context is proof that you can assume things which are not logical or proof.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to johnj) let me guess,you also think the moon landings were faked.you think vacancies cause autism,you think the world leaders are on big family.aeroplanes are dropping mind control drugs on us.
> You like to base your twisted beliefs on ideas with NO evidence or rational thought to support them.
> You like to think you are amongst a special group of people who 'think out of the box' you are in on the secret.
> Why not gather all your 9/11 evidence and present it to a government willing to listen,then you will be forever known as the man who took down the u.s superpower.
> Every point you and your pal sircumalot makes is proven wrong by the people above who actually reads the facts and come to a rational decision.
> The drum you 9/11 morons keep banging has worn out now and the big names have moved on and accepted it for what it was....a terrorist attack

Look at this more people who understand everything, well done
Sir Chasm - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: It's not proper trolling if you keep replying.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> Well, the Babylon actually...
>
> well you've jumped to all the wrong conclusions, they're not my theories they are theories that you can read about in the free western world.
> [...]
>
> I can also read Mad magazine, Private Eye and the Daily Mail, and I tend not to believe everything I read there either. And they have the benefit of editors and a reputation to maintain, rather than self publication (in all senses of the words).
>
>

So you can read a forum and understand the context of what somebody posts also, well done maybe you're related to mystic meg. lol



Fraser on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Fraser)
>
> More and more people want to tell me I'm wrong because i don't agree with the larger peer group.

No, that's definitely not why people are telling you you're wrong. It's because....oh you know what, I give up. Life's too short. As you yourself said, some people have already made up their minds and there's no persuading them otherwise.

Fraser on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

Oh, I noticee you didn't choose to respond to the clarification as to what happened to 'all the rubble' you claim went missing. Any special reason for the omission?
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> So you can read a forum and understand the context of what somebody posts also, well done maybe you're related to mystic meg. lol

Have to say, I'm quite impressed at your ability to remain jovial in light of the kicking you're getting. Good effort :-)
MG - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Fraser: Has it been mentioned it went to the perfectly named "Fresh Kills" landfill site? It's a good job irony isn't Americans' strongest suit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill#Post-9.2F11

Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Really? It did not challenge you at all? Not even all the burnt out cars? You don't find it strange that there are burnt out cars everywhere and the only plausible explanation as to how they were burned is the ash cloud that enveloped New York...which somehow didn't burn all the people...I tip my hat to you sir.
You continue to go on about Flight 77. Your answer to that is Operation Northwood. Look it up and learn something about a declassified project that envisioned the exact same scenario.
Oh yes, and do you actually believe that the terrorist "pilot" (who couldn't qualify to fly a Cessna) was able to pull off one of the most difficult descending spiralling turns, that 100's of really experienced pilots said was impossible, just to hit a a section of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovations...instead of continuing on it's straight trajectory which would have hit the building anyway?
Here's a question for you and anyone else that believes the official story...How do terrorists get NORAD to stand down? See the Norman Mineta testimony for further info.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Fraser:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> No, that's definitely not why people are telling you you're wrong. It's because....oh you know what, I give up. Life's too short. As you yourself said, some people have already made up their minds and there's no persuading them otherwise.

Exaclty, so i'm wrong so what, get over it, but, you're back again to agree, and more and more people want to reply to me to tell me I'm wrong.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to jonny2vests:

Cheers we've be discussing this for a good while on here now so you develop a robustnest, off out anyway now, have fun ;+)
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

So your best explanation for some burnt out cars is a space laser? Really? I wonder how you get to be that skewed.

I work in the field of space geodesy, so I have some perspective on the silliness of what is being said. Maybe I'm in on it though.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> Cheers we've be discussing this for a good while on here now so you develop a robustnest, off out anyway now, have fun ;+)

No worries John, I'm sure you're a top bloke in real life.
Sir Chasm - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Operation Northwoods? Hmmmm, so 9/11 was an incident created by the US in order to give grounds for an invasion of Saudi Arabia?
redsonja - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: I've got it! Bin Laden was working for the CIA. They all plotted it together
mark s - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumalot:
>
> Oh yes, and do you actually believe that the terrorist "pilot" (who couldn't qualify to fly a Cessna) was able to pull off one of the most difficult descending spiralling turns, that 100's of really experienced pilots said was impossible,


can you provide links to these 100's who say this?

jkarran - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> I would like to encourage people to look at photos of the towers collapsing and notice that within seconds you have massive ejections of heavy debris that are thrown 100's of feet away from the tower.

There is air between the floors to begin with, there isn't afterwards. It's a lot of air and it has to go somewhere in very little time. Big pressure, big areas, big forces.

> What force could do this?

See above. Gravity and air pressure.

> Why is concrete immediately pulverized to dust?

Do yourself a favor, calculate the energy released in the collapse then compare the figure to say detonating a small nuclear weapon. Why was the damage so total? Because the energy released was enormous. That's the energy stored in the shape/mass of the buildings by the way, just in case you think I'm somehow suggesting the towers were 'nuked'.

> Why does the building collapse through the area of most resistance?

I presume you mean why does the central structure collapse? Because it's sufficiently weakened primarily by fire that it can no longer support the mass above.

jk
Rampikino - on 05 Feb 2013
mark s - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran: ive read the weight at 750,000 tonnes each.roughly a third above the impact area in one tower and a quarter in the other.that weight dropping into the next and each floor adding to that and muppets still ask why there was explosions and loud noises like bombs?
they use firefighter quotes from the day like 'i heard explosions' what do they think is going through those blokes heads,they are going to be in a mental state like never before.
the explosives needed to bring that down would have been far louder than anything heard that day.

why do the so called 9/11 truth seekers seem surprised when they get ridiculed ?
Bruce Hooker - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

I learnt what the word "vector" meant over 50 years ago and your use of it adds nothing, force and direction have been covered, as with your passing mention of entropy you are, like many who read texts they don't really understand, trying to add weight to your pretty well non-existent "arguments" by using what you think are technical terms. It might be more interesting if you explained why you thought:

"at that point the falling floors would have different vectors from straight down due to all the angular upward force of uprights still in place, plus you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength so the acceleration would not be constant."

What "removed mass from above"? How did the upward supports become "angular"? Why would the base "increase in strength"?

Either explain your incomprehensible statements of admit you are just copying and pasting gobbledygook that you don't understand yourself.
Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests: When have i ever referred to a space laser? Please quote that passage for me.
Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s: You've never heard of these guys?

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
a lakeland climber on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to mark s) You've never heard of these guys?
>
> http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Oops! Forgot I'd set up that site. I'd better take it down in case anyone still falls for it.

ALC
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Go and read 911 myths.. it deals with the stand down... all a myth...

You still don't say what happened to 77.. Northwood.. OK explain where 77 is.. it was seen by a pilot flying low 100m from the side of the pentagon.. it was seen on radar going towards DC.. so where is it?

No vague answers..
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

If it was all a US plot to create reasons to invade Iraq, how all the bad guys were Saudis?
mark s - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: haha and that's 100's of pilots? Need to try harder.
mark s - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: I'm sure we would all like a little post from you discribing the day of 11th Sept an way happened and who did what.try and include information that is good.no copy and paste stuff.just explaination of the main events in your eyes.
Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran: You think that gravity and air pressure caused this mushroom effect?

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-contro...
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Ok so read about Northwood.. so where is the aircraft?

Phil79 - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> If it was all a US plot to create reasons to invade Iraq, how all the bad guys were Saudis?

Now we’re getting down to brass tacks - forget all the orchestrated 9/11 inside job stuff (which is clearly bollocks), the real issue is how and why the Bush administration managed to steer the agenda away from dealing with the real treat (Saudi terrorists and Taliban) to invading a country that had no involvement with 9/11 on the basis of dodgy WMD intelligence.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Phil79:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> Now we’re getting down to brass tacks - forget all the orchestrated 9/11 inside job stuff (which is clearly bollocks), the real issue is how and why the Bush administration managed to steer the agenda away from dealing with the real treat (Saudi terrorists and Taliban) to invading a country that had no involvement with 9/11 on the basis of dodgy WMD intelligence.

Err... the invasion of Afghanistan was a direct response to the Taliban threat...
jkarran - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> You think that gravity and air pressure caused this mushroom effect?

A very energetic building collapse (dust cloud) plus fire (smoke column)... Quite frankly, yes I do.

I'm not sure what you think it shows, perhaps you could explain?

jk
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Yes, but it wasn't the Taleban flying those planes, it was sodding Saudis - trained in the US. So the question is valid.
Phil79 - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Sorry, what I meant is how did we end up invading Iraq in addition to Afghanistan.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Saudi nationals.. they could have been from anywhere

Generally the US/UK have a strong relationship with Saudi.. sales.. forces based there..

I'm not sure there was any case to attack them..

The Taliban strong hold was Afghanistan.
EeeByGum - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to jkarran) You think that gravity and air pressure caused this mushroom effect?
>
> http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-discussion-of-the-most-contro...

The problem I have with arguments like this is that the conspiracy theorist who uses photos to validate their argument always use assumptions that it is a conspiracy theory because it doesn't look right.

"You can't see any stars in space photos therefore man hasn't been to space" is based on the incorrect assumption that you can see stars from space. The irony is that if man hasn't been to space, how would anyone know?

In exactly the same way, you are saying a building falling as a result of a plane attack shouldn't create that sort of mushroom cloud. Unfortunately, you provide absolutely no evidence to back up that assertion.

The best I can offer, is that it proves nothing one way or another but on the side of the non-conspiracy theorists is the simple fact that a plane hit the building, there was a massive fire and then the building fell down. Why that isn't sufficient an explanation is beyond me.
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

You're missing the point a bit, Iain. The contention of the conspiracy theory nutters is that 9/11 was a US set-up, to create a rationale for the invasion of Iraq, so that Dubya could finish what his daddy started. If that was the case, why did the US not create a paper trail that led right back to Saddam Hussein, rather than to a random bunch of Saudis?
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: ok.. so the US is clever enough to develop space age weaponry.. which hasn't been proven to exist.. but just confused nationalities when framing all this..

It does seem the most elaborate hoax attack..

I'd like the big ray gun idea if it wasn't such a sick subject..
Rampikino - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to tony) ok.. so the US is clever enough to develop space age weaponry.. which hasn't been proven to exist.. but just confused nationalities when framing all this..
>
> It does seem the most elaborate hoax attack..
>
> I'd like the big ray gun idea if it wasn't such a sick subject..

Finally somebody actually points out one of the key things here.

The wealth of utter nonsense and speculation made up (and I mean MADE UP) is an insult to the families of those who died and who have to face a regular onslaught of this nonsense while they simply want to grieve.
Jimbo W on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

> "You can't see any stars in space photos therefore man hasn't been to space" is based on the incorrect assumption that you can see stars from space.

Eh? What are you on about? I mean, I can understand why photos light metered on close objects, the earth, moon, astronaut, ISS etc might not allow for seeing stars because the exposure length will be too short, but with the naked eye, I would of thought you could see more stars than within earth's atmosphere? No? Or perhaps you mean there are so many stars visible, that it becomes more difficult to distinguish one star from another? Anyway, this seems plain wrong to me.
Jimbo W on 05 Feb 2013
EeeByGum - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: It is a classic conspiracy from the moon landings. There are no stars in the photos taken from the moon (and spacewalks etc generally) therefore we didn't go to space.

A complete load of tosh as you pointed out. I was simply using it as an example to put my point across that conspiracy theorists always seem to use wild (but wrong) assumptions on why photos / videos look as thy do.
Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: People are deviating off topic here. I think we need to focus on the towers as this is crucial evidence.

Never has a modern steel structured building collapsed, SYMMETRICALLY AND AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, due to fire. Nevermind 3 in one day!

Take a look at this building that was ablaze in Madrid...it did not collapse!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Building 7 is the smoking gun in this whole issue.

It was not hit by a plane.

jkarran - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I asked you a direct question.
MG - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Never has a modern steel structured building collapsed, SYMMETRICALLY AND AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, due to fire.

Yes they have. Also in experiments, collapse of steel structures in fire has been seen.



> Take a look at this building that was ablaze in Madrid...it did not collapse!
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
>


That was a concrete and steel building. The steel bit did collapse.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: How many times have sky scrapers been hit by large passenger airliners?

Maybe, just maybe, we can therefore expect to see something different..

You still have not answered where flight 77 is?
Jim Brooke - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Jim Brooke)
>
> Also you taking the quote of of context is proof that you can assume things which are not logical or proof.

You are more than welcome to assume whatever the f*** you like. Personally I don't assume anything, I come to conclusions based on evidence and rational logic.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: So lets get this right..

The whole attack was framed to point the finger at Iraq and justify the war..

Yet they used Saudi's...

Planes didn't bring down the WTC's.. even though we saw them hit..

A huge ray gun did.. which, in one of the most populated well filmed city in the world, nobody saw operating.. and no evidence of such a weapon exists..

And you can't say what happened to flight 77.. but it didn't hit the pentagon..

Do you not realise there are HUGE holes in your arguments.

johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Jim Brooke:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> You are more than welcome to assume whatever the f*** you like. Personally I don't assume anything, I come to conclusions based on evidence and rational logic.

Yes like lots of other people you read something i wrote late at night and now say that was rational logic, good job!
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> I learnt what the word "vector" meant over 50 years ago and your use of it adds nothing, force and direction have been covered, as with your passing mention of entropy you are, like many who read texts they don't really understand, trying to add weight to your pretty well non-existent "arguments" by using what you think are technical terms. It might be more interesting if you explained why you thought:
>
> "at that point the falling floors would have different vectors from straight down due to all the angular upward force of uprights still in place, plus you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength so the acceleration would not be constant."
>
> What "removed mass from above"? How did the upward supports become "angular"? Why would the base "increase in strength"?
>
> Either explain your incomprehensible statements of admit you are just copying and pasting gobbledygook that you don't understand yourself.

So because you can't understand something it's gobbledygook, to be expected really as you keep saying we should dumb it down as noted above, all that happens if i answer your questions is I waste time. If you want to read theories read the links and email them with your questions.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to gingersmut:

Same as when the earth was flat and mars was a star, life moves on
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
>
> Take a look at this building that was ablaze in Madrid...it did not collapse!
>
Was it hit by a plane?

Why were the bad guys Saudis?
ads.ukclimbing.com
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to gingersmut:

And I just don't buy it, too perfect, the more I see too, the more it's so obvious that there is a lot more to it. We can't help the way we think, that makes us human, and if others want to ridicule us for what we think, that's cool, such is life
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> So because you can't understand something it's gobbledygook, to be expected really as you keep saying we should dumb it down as noted above, all that happens if i answer your questions is I waste time.

Alternatively, you could try answering questions, rather than just posting links to random websites.

Assuming it's not gobbledydook, could you explain what you said about the removed mass from above, and what's the mechanics behind the base becoming stronger?

And why were the bad guys Saudis?
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to gingersmut)
>
> Same as when the earth was flat and mars was a star, life moves on

There was little evidence the earth was flat..

There is evidence the WTC got hit by 2 huge passenger jets..

There is no evidence of a huge ray gun being used in downtown NYC..

There is evidence of super high heat in the towers from the impact of said jets..
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to gingersmut)
>
> And I just don't buy it, too perfect, the more I see too, the more it's so obvious that there is a lot more to it. We can't help the way we think, that makes us human, and if others want to ridicule us for what we think, that's cool, such is life

You do understand Occams Razor...
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to gingersmut:
> (In reply to johnj) So you really think that the evidence presented for the 'conventional' accounts is just myth?
>
I see it like a tabloid version of the story, then to get a bit more info you watch Newsnight, then to get more info you start reading all sources and the truth for you can only be that which resonates with you.

> You don't answer my question, what makes you believe that the 'truthers' evidence is more compelling than the accounts of the conventional explanations?

As said above I don't know which theory is actual what happened, I just can't believe the dummed down version, it just looks so unreal

johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> You do understand Occams Razor...

yeah, doesn't make it the case in all examples tho does it.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to gingersmut:
> (In reply to johnj) Ahh, your sense of intuition, allow me to translate, you'd much rather believe in the bogey man alt. god, the devil, the little green men than the common sense explanation supported by 99.999999% of the evidence.
>
> Can I suggest that you're deluded?

why not, what is sane, in an insane world?
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> There was little evidence the earth was flat..
>
> There is evidence the WTC got hit by 2 huge passenger jets..
>
> There is no evidence of a huge ray gun being used in downtown NYC..
>
> There is evidence of super high heat in the towers from the impact of said jets..

There is a lot of evidence about a lot of things, what you choose to believe does not make the other stuff untrue.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> yeah, doesn't make it the case in all examples tho does it.

No, but if logic suggests something is true it normally is..

All logic points to 2 jets hitting 2 towers..

Is there any evidence of this huge ray gun?
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> No, but if logic suggests something is true it normally is..
>
> All logic points to 2 jets hitting 2 towers..

Yes but does all logic point to 3 towers failing because 2 jets hit them
>
> Is there any evidence of this huge ray gun?

who said it was a huge ray gun?

Bruce Hooker - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> So because you can't understand something it's gobbledygook

No, I understand what these terms mean and when they are appropriate - you clearly don't which is why you use the words incorrectly and type sentences which are not comprehensible. If you mastered the subject a little better you would accept a discussion - not the same as saying read the links - and explain such simple things such as what you mean by "you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength" and how this "removal of mass" took place.

If you understand what you are posting you would be able to explain yourself here, for as start. Afterwards you could do the same for other strangely worded phrases.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: As said.. there was a huge collapse.. millions of tonnes hitting the ground.. huge tremors.. fire damage..

So.. WTC's collapse.. huge loss of life.. why risk the whole story by demolishing a much smaller, evacuated building.. what did they have to gain?

Logically why bring that one down?
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Yes but does all logic point to 3 towers failing because 2 jets hit them
> [...]
>
> who said it was a huge ray gun?

What's the directed energy beam which burns all cars in its path..
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to johnj)
>
> [...]
>
> No, I understand what these terms mean and when they are appropriate - you clearly don't which is why you use the words incorrectly and type sentences which are not comprehensible. If you mastered the subject a little better you would accept a discussion - not the same as saying read the links - and explain such simple things such as what you mean by "you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength" and how this "removal of mass" took place.
>

This is so obvious, the upper floors were no longer there the lower floor had been supporting them so the lower structure at that moment was stronger. Now we have a falling mass, which due to all those things which you say are not important is moving through free space, your unimportant factors are important to the direction of the falling mass, but you seem to believe it falls through its own footprint and keeps accelerating, it's not really me you have an argument with it's Isaac Newton, but there you go


dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> who said it was a huge ray gun?

good question. that website you pointed us to was rather vague about what they claimed it was hence why various people responding chose laser/ray gun etc (probably based on tv shows or movies in their formative years).


Perhaps you can clear it up to us and explain what sort of weapon it was?
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj) As said.. there was a huge collapse.. millions of tonnes hitting the ground.. huge tremors.. fire damage..
>
> So.. WTC's collapse.. huge loss of life.. why risk the whole story by demolishing a much smaller, evacuated building.. what did they have to gain?
>
> Logically why bring that one down?

Because as posted on here several times, the third tower was the HQ, if there were any plans of a big dems job on the towers, that's where it would have been.

Now the BBC announced it fell down 23 minutes before it did, well somebody knew there was a bit more about the timeline of events to all this than what we watched on the TV
EeeByGum - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Never has a modern steel structured building collapsed, SYMMETRICALLY AND AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, due to fire.

Again - what does this prove? Was the building in Madrid 110 stories high? Was it built in exactly the same way as the trade towers? Had a 757 flown into it at high speed? Just because a building has supposedly never fallen down due to fire, doesn't mean anything.

Based on your hypothesis above, you could conclude that since all people who die of cancer drink water, drinking water causes death by cancer... which is utter rubbish.

Correlation does not mean causation. The number one error made by conspiracy theorists.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to dissonance:

as already also said it comes under the term of WMD
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Because as posted on here several times, the third tower was the HQ, if there were any plans of a big dems job on the towers, that's where it would have been.
>
> Now the BBC announced it fell down 23 minutes before it did, well somebody knew there was a bit more about the timeline of events to all this than what we watched on the TV

Why not use the HQ somewhere away from the attack site.. or inside the actual towers?

Did they (the BBC)? There was no simple confusion?

Part of the missile evidence from the pentagon was an official saying 'and it was hit by the missile.. plane'...

Just a simple mistake and that's concrete evidence.. more so than the missing 59 people.. missing plane.. and plane wreckage found at the impact site..
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: And let me get this right..

BBC editors and news reporters were also in on this..

Why did they need to be?

It seems a huge risk to involve them as there was no need to involve anymore than the CIA/martians involved in this hoax..

I'm still waiting to find out what happened to flight 77? Its not the wreckage.. it was tracked on radar.. lost.. found again (as it had changed direction) and lost in DC...
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sir Chasm - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: So "they" knocked building 7 down because that's where "they" kept the 9/11 plans? Why didn't "they" hide their plans somewhere else? Loving your work.
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> Because as posted on here several times, the third tower was the HQ, if there were any plans of a big dems job on the towers, that's where it would have been.

posting it doesnt make it true. Can you explain why someone would put a HQ at ground zero?
Particularly since that location was the first one hit. It would be sort of distracting i would have thought.

> Now the BBC announced it fell down 23 minutes before it did, well somebody knew there was a bit more about the timeline of events to all this than what we watched on the TV

wait so the beeb were in on it?
Foreign media journalists in on the biggest conspiracy of the century.
ermm, yes right.

maybe, just maybe the beeb reporter made a mistake?
MG - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> This is so obvious, the upper floors were no longer there

What do you mean? They clearly were still there. They didn't vanish. The point is the structure below was weaker due to getting hot on floors which were on fire and could no longer support the upper floors.



the lower floor had been supporting them so the lower structure at that moment was stronger.

How does it become stronger? It hasn't changed at all.


Now we have a falling mass,


Exactly. The force on the lower floors was very much increased due to this mass (F=ma), which led to a sequential failure.

dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> as already also said it comes under the term of WMD

If it exists then maybe. However you still need to tell us what it was. There is no point in whining about people using raygun or laser and not explaining where we are going wrong.

Phil79 - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) People are deviating off topic here. I think we need to focus on the towers as this is crucial evidence.
>
> Never has a modern steel structured building collapsed, SYMMETRICALLY AND AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, due to fire. Nevermind 3 in one day!
>
>
> Building 7 is the smoking gun in this whole issue.
>
> It was not hit by a plane.

And never before have two large commercial jetliners travelling in excess of 400 mph and carrying a near full load of jet fuel been flown into modern buildings. So to claim it was just down to the fire (for WTC 1 & 2) is just wilfully ignoring the facts.

In plan, the structure of the WTC 1 & 2 was essentially an exterior square perimeter of steel columns on the outside of the building and an interior core of more columns (and lift shafts and stairs) held together with steel floor trusses. The aircraft impacts destroyed or weakened some of columns, both in the perimeter but more critically within the core, while at the same time knocking fire proofing off the columns and starting fires.

The weight of the building above then began deforming the weakened steel, with the subsequent fire both weakening the columns further, and causing the floor trusses to sag and pull exterior columns inwards. Steel columns in buildings are primarily designed to accommodate vertical static loads (i.e. the weight of building above), but not really designed to be bent and pulled laterally. So eventually, the perimeter columns along one face fail, the load they carried is transferred inward to the building core via the trusses, the core is also compromised and also fails at which point all the weight of building above becomes a dynamic load and drops onto the ‘uncompromised’ section of building beneath.

Once the collapse started, the mass of floors above the point of failure is far in excess of the resistance offered by the floors and columns below, which progressively collapse with the rate of failure accelerating as the building comes down.

Now to me, that sequence of events (taken from the NIST report) appears to be a fairly logically method for the failure of the building, and largely ties up with what was observed. Clearly the sequence of events was far beyond what you’d expect in a normal fire, and comparison with other fires in buildings is misleading.

WTC 7 was structurally far more complicated that the towers, in part IIRC due to the large spans that were needed to bridge over existing services below the building, so I can easily imagine and that impact damage (from falling towers) and fires within the building could cause collapse, albeit by a more complicated method.

There are so many variables involved in this that the ‘official’ explanation will never be 100% correct, and there will be uncertainty involved. But as far as I can see, this a far more convincing explanation of what happened than throwaway theories like ‘it was a controlled demolition’ or ‘it was thermite’ which in no way appear to provide an overall explanation of what specifically happened, when it happened, & how it happened. Therefore, logic and reason wins.










dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to MG:

> What do you mean? They clearly were still there. They didn't vanish.


johnj seems to take the stance that some sort of US super weapon vaporised the top floors from space.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to johnj) So "they" knocked building 7 down because that's where "they" kept the 9/11 plans? Why didn't "they" hide their plans somewhere else? Loving your work.

This is like exponential central, for every post I make 3 new people reply, I just need to apply this principle to selling things, would love to stay around and shoot the shit, but work to do ya'll. I'm sure you'll have fun in your big happy gang proving how wrong I am again ;+)
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
> [...]
>
> This is like exponential central, for every post I make 3 new people reply, I just need to apply this principle to selling things, would love to stay around and shoot the shit, but work to do ya'll. I'm sure you'll have fun in your big happy gang proving how wrong I am again ;+)


It's funny that - just like at court I find the more actual robust evidence I supply the less arguments I receive.
johnj on 05 Feb 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to off-duty:

So now robust evidence is lots of people saying the same thing, you're funny :+)
MG - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj: Just so we know where were are, which of the following do think is implausible.

1) Planes crashing in the WTC towers caused severe fires
2) These fires heated structural steelwork to an extent that it could no longer support the structure above.
3) The floors above the fire fell on those below
4) The inertial forces from the falling floors caused the cold floors to fail sequentially.
Jim Brooke - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Jim Brooke)
> [...]
>
> Yes like lots of other people you read something i wrote late at night and now say that was rational logic, good job!

I think you'll find I said precisely the opposite... keep up!
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> So now robust evidence is lots of people saying the same thing, you're funny :+)

Again we come back to that logical approach thingy...

As you say some things defy logic.. specifically you.. :-)
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:

> So now robust evidence is lots of people saying the same thing, you're funny :+)

clearly not since there seems to be plenty of sites and people coming out with crap about space weapons etc.
mark s - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance: I love reading conspiricy nutters explainations of big events.
Pyscologists must be in their element.it has to come down to a few crossed wires.or too much sitting on their own listening to iyke and alex Jones smoking weed
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> So now robust evidence is lots of people saying the same thing, you're funny :+)

I am beginning to understand your concept of logic now. I find robust evidence generally involves an explanation of events that doesn't involve the unobserved participation of mysterious conspirators and secret weapons systems operated by unknown people with unclear objectives.

I find if it looks like a burglary, smells like a burglary a bunch of independent witnesses say it was a burglary then it probably wasn't a governmental secret conspiracy.
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> I find if it looks like a burglary, smells like a burglary a bunch of independent witnesses say it was a burglary then it probably wasn't a governmental secret conspiracy.

You're obviously missing a trick. Your clear-up rates could be fantastic if everything could be pinned on secret government conspiracies. And you could claim you were being hampered in your pursuit of justice by "them". It's a win-win right up to the point that "they" make you disappear".
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> I find if it looks like a burglary, smells like a burglary a bunch of independent witnesses say it was a burglary then it probably wasn't a governmental secret conspiracy.

it was the CIA who burgled it though.
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) Really? It did not challenge you at all? Not even all the burnt out cars? You don't find it strange that there are burnt out cars everywhere and the only plausible explanation as to how they were burned is the ash cloud that enveloped New York...which somehow didn't burn all the people...I tip my hat to you sir.

Let me think about this one. A huge crash as two fuel filled airplanes hit two tower blocks causing fires and destruction. Burning debris falling all around. A bunch of stationary metal objects full of petrol that can be ignited by sparks, impacts, buring embers, burning debris in comparison to a bunch of running around people that are trying to avoid being hit by falling things, and if a falling hot thing landed on or near them would have a tendency to move away. Yet nevertheless one third of all the casualties from that day were burns victims.


> Oh yes, and do you actually believe that the terrorist "pilot" (who couldn't qualify to fly a Cessna) was able to pull off one of the most difficult descending spiralling turns, that 100's of really experienced pilots said was impossible, just to hit a a section of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovations...instead of continuing on it's straight trajectory which would have hit the building anyway?

Hmm. So a diving, crashing place, quite possibly out of control is performing manouevres that an experienced pilot says would be really hard to do in a controlled fashion. I think the clue might be in the word "crashing".
jkarran - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> Hmm. So a diving, crashing place, quite possibly out of control is performing manouevres that an experienced pilot says would be really hard to do in a controlled fashion. I think the clue might be in the word "crashing".

Accurate spot landings would be an awful lot easier if you didn't have to walk away from them.

jk
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to jonny2vests) When have i ever referred to a space laser? Please quote that passage for me.

Here you go:

> Why did the cars get burnt to such a degree when they were well away from any falling towers? Are you saying that embers set cars alight?

> What do you think of this link?

ads.ukclimbing.com
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests:

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. From the Conclusions:

Our critics have accused us of insisting that beam weapons did their damage from outer space, yet we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform. Nor do we make any claim about what wavelength(s) was used, what the source(s) of energy was, whether it involved interference of multiple beams, whether it involved sound waves, whether it involved sonoluminescence, whether it involved antimatter weapons, whether it involved scalar weapons, whether it was HAARP (more here and here), whether it involved a nuclear process (e.g. NDEW, more info), whether it involved conventional directed energy weapons (conDEW), whether it involved improvised directed energy weapons (iDEW), nor what kind of accelerator was used, nor do we claim to know what the serial numbers of the parts that were in the weapon(s).

In other words, the authors of that website have, by their own admission, no idea what they're talking about. And yet somehow, some people seem to hang on their every word.
EeeByGum - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
>
> In other words, the authors of that website have, by their own admission, no idea what they're talking about. And yet somehow, some people seem to hang on their every word.

Agreed. Maybe the cars were burned out / crushed by falling debris / burning fuel and then moved some place else shortly after the disaster in order to allow emergency services to get better access? Mind you, that sounds far too sensible.
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:

Disclaimer or not, that's where he linked to space lasers et al. It's a page about space lasers. Either he wants to draw our attention to it or not, he can't have it both ways.
tony on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Disclaimer or not, that's where he linked to space lasers et al. It's a page about space lasers. Either he wants to draw our attention to it or not, he can't have it both ways.

But that's my point. It's not lasers, they're not in space, it's not anything. But somehow the authors of the website think that waving around the words Directed Energy Weapons is somehow conclusive prove of something. The page he linked to just shows lots of pictures of burned out cars, as if that's proof of something. There is some devastatingly stupid stuff going on on that website.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Come back.. I'm bored working..
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:

> There is some devastatingly stupid stuff going on on that website.

the conclusions page really should be renamed or banned under the trade descriptions act.
I like the idea of an improvised directed energy weapon though. Someone thinking sod the anarchists cookbook lets get out some phd level physics books and see what we can put together.
Bruce Hooker - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> This is so obvious, the upper floors were no longer there

Where on earth had they gone? They had collapsed onto the remaining floors under them but their mass was still there!

> the lower floor had been supporting them so the lower structure at that moment was stronger.

Even if the floors had evaporated this wouldn't make the lower structure "stronger", it would mean it had less weight to support, but even this is just a vocabulary error, and the weight of the floors is still bearing on the lowers structure, with one big difference, it is all now moving down and as any climber knows a dynamic load is far more destructive than a static one.

> Now we have a falling mass,

Which is the important thing,

> which due to all those things which you say are not important is moving through free space, your unimportant factors are important to the direction of the falling mass,

Slipping the words entropy and vector into a paragraph don't really add to this, the terms are not appropriate, I don't think the physics are unimportant just that the way the words are used is not useful.

> but you seem to believe it falls through its own footprint and keeps accelerating, it's not really me you have an argument with it's Isaac Newton, but there you go

Newton said several things, one of which was that things in motion only change their direction and speed when a force is exerted on them. In this case the downwards motion is accelerating due to gravity, resisted unsuccessfully by the lower floors but there are no sideways forces so the building will indeed fall onto its "footprint"... Isaac Newton says it would and he was right.

Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to MG: This is a good summary but allow me to interject and add a few details.

Let's look at the observable evidence (with regards to the Twin Towers)...I'm sure we can all agree on the following:

1) 2 planes hit 2 towers
2) Both towers did not collapse immediately
3) Fires ignited in both buildings
4) Flames are observed however after about an hour the flames are no longer observable and black smoke rises from the hole left by each of the planes
5) People are seen waving for help, from the hole left by each of the planes
6) The second tower to be hit collapses first...falling straight down with a large dust cloud resembling a pyroclastic flow
7) The first tower to be hit collapses second...falling straight down with a large dust cloud resembling a pyroclastic flow

I would hope that everyone would agree, these are facts.

Now, because the towers have collapsed an explanation to why the buildings collapsed needs to be found.

This is where alot of assumptions are made which I believe are flawed.

I don't believe that the fires were intense enough to weaken the steel. The reasons I say this is because people were standing in the gaping hole and if the fires were that intense they would have died. The firefighters clearly stated that they could subdue the fires with 1 or 2 lines. There was more smoke pouring out the building than flames.

If the steel was weakened then it wouldn't be uniform (as obviously there is heat variation) and so the collapse would have started at the area of least resistance and continued falling in that direction. This would have mean't that a section of the building would have tipped towards this side and (perhaps) collapsed. This would have been a partial collapse.

MG: Your points 2 & 3 are conjecture...you have to admit this. You've assumed the fire was hot enough and therefore the collapse was inevitable.

My final point is this.

You simply can't get me to believe that the failure of a few floors, of the upper third of these buildings, would fall through the lower two third of the undamaged building...at near free fall speed.
Why would the lower two thirds of the building suddenly not have the capacity to hold the upper on third of the building up? What had it been doing for the last 30 years?
To believe the upper third of each of the buildings could crush through the intact two thirds of the lower building is absolutely ludicrous!



paulcarey - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

You forgot to mention that the impact of the planes might also weaken the steel.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: People were jumping 100 floors to their deaths because the fire was so intense..

Your tipping point is so preposterous it is incredible.. why would a tower tip? Icesolo has said about seeing buildings collapse in on themselves..

And you say others are making points of conjecture?

You can stand on ice and it won't break.. jump on it and it will..
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> 6) The second tower to be hit collapses first...falling straight down with a large dust cloud resembling a pyroclastic flow
> 7) The first tower to be hit collapses second...falling straight down with a large dust cloud resembling a pyroclastic flow
>
> I would hope that everyone would agree, these are facts.

no. Lets just take this claim about falling straight down.
You only need to look at the list of other buildings that ended up being demolished due to damage.
Take the Deutsche Bank building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_4019_-_Photograph_by_Michael_Rieger_taken_on_09-21-2001_in_...

Or WTC3 which was destroyed (although for some reason the nutters dont go on about that one).
Or WTC6 and so on.

As for pyroclastic flow, no it didnt resemble one luckily. Also what is the relevance, apart from trying to make it sound mysterious?
Sircumfrins - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: What do you mean preposterous?! Are you that gormless to understand that if you have a square shaped building, that was impacted and damaged on one of the sides, that if the building was to fail it would fall in the direction of the damaged side and continue in that direction.
Basic science!
Basic experiment here. Get your Jenga blocks out. Pile the blocks on top of each other parallel (no gridlock pattern as per the game) and remove a block two thirds of the way up. What happens? The blocks immediately above the block you removed all fall in the direction of the removed block.
Jeepers!
off-duty - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) What do you mean preposterous?! Are you that gormless to understand that if you have a square shaped building, that was impacted and damaged on one of the sides, that if the building was to fail it would fall in the direction of the damaged side and continue in that direction.
> Basic science!
> Basic experiment here. Get your Jenga blocks out. Pile the blocks on top of each other parallel (no gridlock pattern as per the game) and remove a block two thirds of the way up. What happens? The blocks immediately above the block you removed all fall in the direction of the removed block.
> Jeepers!


You really have used removing one block from a wooden jenga block tower to try and draw a meaningful conclusion about crashing a jet airplane loaded with fuel into a 110 story tower block?

> Basic experiment here. Get your Jenga blocks out. Pile the blocks on top of each other parallel (no gridlock pattern as per the game) and remove a block two thirds of the way up. What happens? The blocks immediately above the block you removed all fall in the direction of the removed block.
> Jeepers!

Yup. You have. Well it's definitely a basic experiment.
IainRUK - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Gormless.. PhD.. probably..

I just think

1) It was intense heat as people were willing to face certain death..
So yes I refute your insulting claim that people decided to kill themselves because there were small fires in the rooms..

2) Catastrophic failure. The moment something fails in a system, all the stresses change, the responses change. Things go bang suddenly.. it doesn't just fall over as one beam breaks and leans.. stresses another beam and that breaks..

It's not mechano..

The fact you try to explain them with Jenga blocks illustrates perfectly your ridiculously simplistic understanding here.
Bruce Hooker - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Look at the films again, when the plane hits it seems to penetrate the building and flames are not limited to one side. The momentum of the plane and the many tons of fuel it was carrying would have sent this right into the building. Fuel would have been flowing down the stairwells and other shafts and the resulting fire would have been fanned by the updraft. This was visible in the films.

The gradual weakening of the building around the impact floors and the fire seems a fairly reasonable explanation for the delay between the crash and the collapse, it also enabled many to escape, from the floors below the fire.

Otherwise how do you explain it? If it had been bombs they would have had to be placed at the point of collapse in advance, in other words the bombers would have had to know exactly where the plane would hit in advance, not just one plane but two! Does it really sound more likely than the normal explanation?
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> But that's my point. It's not lasers, they're not in space, it's not anything.

Yes yes. I was taking the piss. Obviously. Read up the thread.

a lakeland climber on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

The WTC towers were build nothing like a Jenga block tower. If the points of impact were close to the base of the towers then it might have been possible for them to "fall over"

The construction of WTC1 & WTC2 was that the outer walls were very strong steel pillars. There was a central column holding the lifts and service lifts The central pillar and outer walls were held together by lightweight trellised beams. The connections were basically pins in to flanges on the pillars. This construction gave the largest floor area possible - more floor area = more rent = more profit for the owners. A rough guide to the size of each floor area is an acre circa 70 metres by 70 metres.

When the planes hit they made large holes in one side of the buildings but this wouldn't have made much difference to their structural integrity though they wouldn't have been safe for use for some time. In engineering terms there was a lot of redundancy. Once the fires started they didn't really affect the main outer walls but did affect the internal trellis beams which were of much lighter construction. As these failed they had an affect on the outer pillars in that instead of having lateral support every 4 metres or so, they suddenly had 8 metres then 12 between support. (A good experiment you can do at home is with the cardboard centres of toilet rolls. One on its own is pretty strong end to end and will support substantial weight. Stack another roll on top and the whole lot becomes much more unstable.)

Once the weight above the impact zone became too much for the pillars to support as the lattice beams failed then the upper floors dropped. The outer pillars will have folded like concertinas. At this point you don't have to support a static mass but a dynamic one. When the upper floors smashed in to the first floor there's a huge shock and the lightweight beams and the pins connecting them to the pillars fail so the weight can drop to the next floor. This repeats on each floor as the forces each floor has to support both increases in mass and speed. As the volume in each floor is compressed it escapes via the easiest route - the windows. This is what looked like explosions in the side of the building as it fell.

The reason that the south tower fell first even though it was the second to be attacked was that the impact point was much lower so there was more mass to deform the supporting pillars.

Simple engineering.

ALC
LaMentalist on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Here is some more interesting viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn1yaBXm8ac

colina - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to LaMentalist:
> (In reply to buzby78)
>
> Here is some more interesting viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn1yaBXm8ac


love it
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to LaMentalist:

Amazing.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jonny2vests - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to a lakeland climber:

Nice. A good summary of how I understood it to be.
IainRUK - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests: There's also the 9/11 surfer.. the guy who was on something like floor 62 and somehow landed on top of the wreckage..

If some sort of super gun was used, which evaporated all the wreckage.. which supposedly wasn't at the site but clearly was.. how did he survive..
Jim C - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to JSA:
> (In reply to Moggsy)
> [...]
>
> That means nothing without the size of RSJ/UB.

I buy RSJ/UB
The engineers specify different materials, For different purposes , and different weight classes .
I assume that for buildings , they are all the same heat resistance?
(I leave it to them to choose the correct materials, I am not qualified to do so)
jkarran - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Now, because the towers have collapsed an explanation to why the buildings collapsed needs to be found.

> This is where alot of assumptions are made which I believe are flawed.

Quite.

> I don't believe that the fires were intense enough to weaken the steel.

Well that settles that then. I'd suggest some research might be more appropriate than relying on gut feelings in this matter but I'd be wasting my time.

> The reasons I say this is because people were standing in the gaping hole and if the fires were that intense they would have died.

They did die.

Clearly the fire was not uniformly distributed, that does not mean it was not intense enough locally to weaken the structure.

> The firefighters clearly stated that they could subdue the fires with 1 or 2 lines. There was more smoke pouring out the building than flames.

People make mistakes. Also, it's possible they could subdue the fires they could access, they may not have been the fires doing the harm or they may have been remnants of the fire that had already done the harm. Given the situation I'm inclined toward believing this is a mistake or a misquote. Either way it's indicative of little.

> If the steel was weakened then it wouldn't be uniform (as obviously there is heat variation)

Correct

> ...and so the collapse would have started at the area of least resistance and continued falling in that direction.

Also sort of correct. Imagine the central tube fails unevenly, the upper building lists toward the failure applying intolerable stresses to the other side of the tube which subsequently also fails. At this point the upper building is essentially unsupported and rotating slowly (toppling). The key thing is it's rotating slowly and the torque that initiated the rotation has been removed, it's accelerating rapidly downwards. As the mass of the falling upper structure impacts the lower structure the forces are enormous and the structure is destroyed, the collapse continues rapidly downwards. The upper section is still rotating but in the time it takes to fall it's not actually rotated very much at all. Tall thin buildings become basically a conical heap of wreckage.

> This would have mean't that a section of the building would have tipped towards this side and (perhaps) collapsed. This would have been a partial collapse.

Almost right.

I imagine you don't care and there's nothing I can do to convince you of this but I can propose a simple experiment that might help.

Stand on an empty coke tin, standing straight on flat ground it'll support your weight. Tap the side with a stick and that side will buckle, you will fall 'through the structure', 'into the footprint', however you want to think of it almost un-opposed by the residual resistance of the damaged can. To all intents and purposes you 'freefall'. Now check out the shape of the can, did it topple or did it collapse axially? You might need to repeat the experiment a few times, it doesn't work perfectly every time not least because it's hard to balance and tap. You tap one side, it fails on one side initially yet you don't topple like a tree.

> MG: Your points 2 & 3 are conjecture...you have to admit this. You've assumed the fire was hot enough and therefore the collapse was inevitable.

It's easy to think of steel as something solid, rigid, impervious. That's understandable but it's not the reality, that's only the reality at the pressures and temperatures we normally apply to steel. Heat it up and (or) apply greater pressures then it's better thought of as something more akin to a thermoplastic. Soft and malleable.

Understand this and the 'kerosene can't melt steel' argument becomes irrelevant.

> You simply can't get me to believe that the failure of a few floors, of the upper third of these buildings, would fall through the lower two third of the undamaged building...at near free fall speed.

You can take a horse to water...

> Why would the lower two thirds of the building suddenly not have the capacity to hold the upper on third of the building up? What had it been doing for the last 30 years?
> To believe the upper third of each of the buildings could crush through the intact two thirds of the lower building is absolutely ludicrous!

Put a large hammer on your hand. Your hand supports it easily, right. Now drop the large hammer 10m onto your hand.... Yeah, the white bits are bone. But your hand can support the hammer, right?

To believe you could drop quarter of a million tons even an inch onto an existing tower structure and expect either part to survive in any meaningful way is what's ludicrous.

Please do do the can experiment, it's really quite enlightening. Sky scrapers are basically big tin cans, adequately strong while intact. For the avoidance of lawsuits: Please don't do the hammer experiment.

jk
MG - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: If I have read that correctly the two points you doubt most strongly are

1) the fire temperatures
2) that floors falling on those below would lead to a total collapse.

On 1, there have been plenty of experiments of full size fires where temperatures have been measured; there are a number of theoretical models of fire behaviour; and there are computer models of fire behaviour. For typical open plan offices (such as the WTC) typical gas temperatures are in the range 700-1000C in these fire. Steel will have lost about 50% of its strength once it reach about 550C, so it is entirely credible that the fires were sufficient to weaken the steel to an extent that caused collapse.

For example http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModell...

On 2) this is simply a case of a moving mass requiring a lot more force to resist than is required to stop a mass starting moving. (F=ma). For example, you could probably carry someone on your shoulder but probably you would fall over if someone jumped onto your shoulders from even small height. Since several floors were heated, the lower structure was unable to support the upper floors as they fell thought perhaps 20m.
a lakeland climber on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran:

Nice one John. I'd forgotten the drinks can trick - we used to do it at school with pretty well every can. Doubt I'm supple enough these days :-(

People have this concept of large steel being inflexible - it isn't: lift a 4ft scaffold tube at one end and there is little deflection. Lift a 21ft tube at one end and it noticably sags between the end points. If you want the 21ft tube to remain straight then you have to support it at further points along its length. The steel pillars in the WTC relied on lateral support for part of their strength, as those supports were removed the pillars began to deflect until they were far enough away from their intended alignment that they couldn't support the mass above. Effectively this is what you are doing when you tap the wall of the drinks can.

The only time we generally see large buildings collapse/fall is when we see video of controlled demolitions. In these cases the "control" is usually to drop the debris in a particular direction away from other structures that need to remain undamaged. Thus the building "topples over" or rather it doesn't because it's effectively been pushed that way.

ALC
MG - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to JSA)
> I assume that for buildings , they are all the same heat resistance?

Higher strength mild steels start to lose strength (and stiffness) at slightly lower temperatures but there is not much in it.
EeeByGum - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to a lakeland climber:

> The only time we generally see large buildings collapse/fall is when we see video of controlled demolitions.

Good point. The questions I don't understand about the explosion theory are as follows:

- Why would you place the explosives half way up the tower? Surely there would be a risk that the plane hit the floor where the explosives were placed making them unusable?
- You would need several tonnes of explosive to destroy a building that size. If you have ever seen videos of demolition, the explosive is usually drilled into the building fabric and there are miles of detonation wires are draped everywhere. How would you place the explosives and detonation wires without anyone seeing or noticing?
- Why would you wait an hour or so after the plane hit before detonating the explosives? Surely it would create a bigger impact if you had the plane hit the tower and then have it fall immediately?
- I do wonder why you would even bother with the planes crashing into buildings at all. After all, Al Qaeda had an unsuccessful pop at the WTC in 1994. You would simply say that they came back in a more organised fashion.
Tradlad - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: theres lots of stuff here http://www.bbc5.tv about 911 .. also a lot of other stuff too.. as someone else pointed out.. wheres my Tin foil hat :O) ... enjoy


Jonny2vests - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
> [...]
>

> - You would need several tonnes of explosive to destroy a building that size. If you have ever seen videos of demolition, the explosive is usually drilled into the building fabric and there are miles of detonation wires are draped everywhere. How would you place the explosives and detonation wires without anyone seeing or noticing?

With a space laser of course. Or thermite. Or Godzilla. Did you watch the BBC2 doc in the OP?
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Interesting 5min clip of burnt out cars...what happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u0GIueOEQo
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) Interesting 5min clip of burnt out cars...what happened?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u0GIueOEQo

See answer at 1627 Tuesday.
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) Interesting 5min clip of burnt out cars...what happened?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u0GIueOEQo

Also still waiting for the explanation for flight 77 which supposedly didn't hit the pentagon.. but was last seen in person and on radar around DC.. so where did a boeing go to in a heavily populated area?
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) Interesting 5min clip of burnt out cars...what happened?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u0GIueOEQo

Having watched it I'm aghast that she has a qualification in anything even vaguely scientific.
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

This thread is still alive? There must be a CONSPIRACY to keep it going.

I blame the CIA.
Sir Chasm - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: It was a directed energy weapon, of course. People are so close-minded on this site.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: Enlighten us then...what caused all these cars to be burnt asunder?
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Seriously. This thread was dead for days and you brought it back to life.

This despite having NOTHING WHATSOEVER THAT IS NEW OR RELEVANT to add to it other than...

Oooo ahhhh, that looks a bit suspicous. Must be a feckin conspiracy.

IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Enlighten us then...what caused all these cars to be burnt asunder?

Why should people answer your questions when you avoid others?

My first question would be.. whats the evidence that these were from that day?

Second, cars melt..

third.. they melt locally.. I burnt out one car.. from the back it looked untouched, the front half was severly melted.

4. Ties burn and melt very easily..

5. Paint blisters off easily..

6. A jet full of fuel crashed at 500mph.. burning debris would have travelled a long way.. it only had to land on something flammable and that would burn and others around it would..
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Mate, you are pissing into the wind.

A "truther" such as this moves from one argument to another willy nilly. When faced with a debunk and counter arguments he/she, simply blanks it and then either repeats the same theory with words slightly rearranged or moves onto the next theory - thus evading both the real truth or the difficult task of answering a straight question.
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Enlighten us then...what caused all these cars to be burnt asunder?

you tell us. Any reference to directed energy weapons needs backing up with evidence though.
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Perhaps agents of the conspiracy went from car to car, torching them on purpose in order to make it look like they had... erm... perhaps some explosion nearby had erm... erm...

IT WAS A SPACE RAY GUN!!
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Enlighten us then...what caused all these cars to be burnt asunder?

I would go for the same explanation that over one third of the casualties that day were burns victims.

Cars burn. They burn when they get hit with hot things, they burn when smouldering things land on or near them, they burn when sparks from debris ignite petrol tanks, they burn when cars next to them catch fire. They dont burn in a uniform fashion.

Analysing post event photgraphs with no idea what action has taken place at the scene post incident but pre photograph is not a good way of establishing what has happened.
An example of which is the drivel about - "look at all the paper it's not burnt".
jkarran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

What happened? Mostly they caught fire and burned, for a variety of reasons, not least because of burning debris falling on or near them. Some appear not to be burned but partially scoured of paint by the dust/blast. Others will have been involved in crashes and left to burn because the fire department was busy. Some may have been burned out before the attack, some after then not cleared up because the city/police/fire department was overwhelmed. At least one of the pictures I've seen appears to have the fuel cap open suggesting deliberate burning or fuel theft. Burning cars next to unburned paper, another nut bar favourite. Perhaps the paper arrived some time after whatever ignited the cars. I'm not sure why context less pictures of burned cars are considered evidence of anything but cars burning.

Did you crush a coke tin yet?
jk
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran:

I don't think his kind of coke comes in a tin. ;)
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Enlighten us then...what caused all these cars to be burnt asunder?

What never fails to amaze me is how you can pride yourself on your critical ability to challenge the "official view" and yet seem to accept arrant nonsense like this at face value with no apparent critical thought at all
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Well done. All of you who have responded in the last 10mins have have displayed your own ignorance of the question.

You all think these cars (most of them were very far away from the buildings) were burnt beyond repair because of falling debis or the dust cloud?

Have you seen all the footage of being enveloped by the dust cloud and emerging covered in dust? Why weren't they burnt to a cinder?

Do you think metal burns easier than flesh?

Do your own research and see how far away these cars were...you will realise how foolish your responses are.
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: So what happened to the plane?


How do you know all cars were burnt that day?
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: So are you now saying it was some ray gun? I thought you weren't..
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Which plane? They all hit their targets.

I don't know what caused the cars to be burnt like that...I'm asking the question that has never been address by the official story.
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) Well done. All of you who have responded in the last 10mins have have displayed your own ignorance of the question.
>
> You all think these cars (most of them were very far away from the buildings) were burnt beyond repair because of falling debis or the dust cloud?
>
> Have you seen all the footage of being enveloped by the dust cloud and emerging covered in dust? Why weren't they burnt to a cinder?
>
> Do you think metal burns easier than flesh?
>
> Do your own research and see how far away these cars were...you will realise how foolish your responses are.

FFS. Do you honestly believe that these cars were vapourised instantly? Or is it possible that a combination of fires, falling debris, smouldering particles can have caused them to burn, action complicated by the involvement of fire fighters etc?

Do you honestly not see how much easier it is to set on fire something that stays still e.g. a car, rather than something that is running about - e.g. a human?
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Pentagon.. which was hit by a cruise missile..
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) Which plane? They all hit their targets.
>
> I don't know what caused the cars to be burnt like that...I'm asking the question that has never been address by the official story.

Yes it has...
Sir Chasm - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) Which plane? They all hit their targets.
>
> I don't know what caused the cars to be burnt like that...

Go on, you've got a theory haven't you? Why so coy?

ThunderCat - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Enlighten us then...what caused all these cars to be burnt asunder?

A much more fundamental question - what does "burnt asunder" mean?
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Have you ever actually seen a car on fire, or burnt out? From the sound of it that "scientist" certainly hasn't.
jkarran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Well done. All of you who have responded in the last 10mins have have displayed your own ignorance of the question.
> You all think these cars (most of them were very far away from the buildings) were burnt beyond repair because of falling debis or the dust cloud?

It's like banging my head against a brick fu**ing wall. Read my post. Read the other posts. Some will have been burned by aircraft debris, some by building debris and some by all the other things that cause cars to burn in a city of 8 million.

> Have you seen all the footage of being enveloped by the dust cloud and emerging covered in dust? Why weren't they burnt to a cinder?

Because most of the dust cloud was just dust. Some of the falling debris within and without of the dust cloud was on fire.

> Do you think metal burns easier than flesh?

Do you *think*?

> Do your own research and see how far away these cars were...you will realise how foolish your responses are.

How man crashes are there in an average day in lower Manhattan? How many crashes in an utterly extraordinary day? Where were all the fire fighters?

You're right though about the foolishness of responding, it's like trying to teach a dog algebra :(
jk
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: You're a policman and you can't see the significance of some cars (which are several blocks away from the collapsed towers) being burnt beyond repair...that have no reason to be burnt out at all? Are you serious! Look at the link I sent earlier! You don't see anything strange with over 1400 cars being burnt out (some of the engine blocks missing)?!
You've got to be kidding me!

Not when the cars are 100's of meters away from any falling debris and blocked by other buildings.

The only reason why you would say that is because you're just assuming the cars were right next to the buildings and were hit by falling debris...this is not the case!
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: You think the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile?
dissonance - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Not when the cars are 100's of meters away from any falling debris and blocked by other buildings.

ok, so what did do the damage. Was it after the commandos finished setting thermite all over the place they realised they had some left over and decided "sod it lets melt a few cars for fun" or some energy weapon. In which case you need to explain why it didnt hit anything else.
Was it just bad aim?
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) You think the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile?

Do I seem like a crazy person?

No.. Its just the main theory..
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: How do they explain the burnt out cars then? Send me a link.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: I honestly don't know how those cars were all burnt out but they were know where near the falling buildings and so I've ruled out falling debris.

What do you think?
MG - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Have you read any of the responses above to your car question?
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: I already have explained..

Not all cars will have come from the towers.. cars do burn when they crash..
jkarran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

The 30 or so posts above this one offer many valid reasons why cars burned on that day near the site and well away from the site. Crushed and burned cars may well have been subsequently photographed out of their original context. Are you reading what people are writing?

jk
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm) I honestly don't know how those cars were all burnt out but they were know where near the falling buildings and so I've ruled out falling debris.
>
> What do you think?

OK so how did the big ray gun randomly burn cars and not other cars.. not buildings...
EeeByGum - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> You all think these cars (most of them were very far away from the buildings)
It is true. There are pictures of burned out cars up to 1km away from the WTC. What we don't know is when those photos were taken. Explanations I have seen suggest that the burned out and crushed cars you see photographed away from the WTC were moved there well after the collapse by the emergency services in order to mount a rescue. This could be a classic case of attaching a story to a photo rather than the photo capturing the story.

> were burnt beyond repair because of falling debis or the dust cloud?
Maybe they were burned by falling jet fuel? They were almost certainly crushed by falling debris. Sounds logical to me.

> Have you seen all the footage of being enveloped by the dust cloud and emerging covered in dust? Why weren't they burnt to a cinder?
Because the dust wasn't that hot? Is it possible that the cars were burned before the towers collapsed by burning fuel oil from the planes or burning debris falling from the intense fires that burned for an hour or so? I don't think anyone is suggesting that the dust caused them to spontaneously combust.

> Do you think metal burns easier than flesh?
Not at all, but there were many burn casualties so I don't know what your point is.

> Do your own research and see how far away these cars were...you will realise how foolish your responses are.
At what time were the photos of burned cars away from the WTC taken?
tony on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> The only reason why you would say that is because you're just assuming the cars were right next to the buildings and were hit by falling debris...this is not the case!

How do you know that? How do you know they weren't hit by falling debris and then towed to a different location afterwards?
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78:

Perhaps there is an expectation that two enormous buildings would collapse from a height of 1400ft, sending millions of tonnes of rubble, debris and burning fuel all over the place and that nearby cars would not be touched.

That a whole bunch of them burned is no kind of leap at all.

OH WAIT, IT WAS A SPACE RAY GUN!!!!!!!!!
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) You're a policman and you can't see the significance of some cars (which are several blocks away from the collapsed towers) being burnt beyond repair...that have no reason to be burnt out at all? Are you serious! Look at the link I sent earlier! You don't see anything strange with over 1400 cars being burnt out (some of the engine blocks missing)?!
> You've got to be kidding me!
>
> Not when the cars blocks away from any falling debris and blocked by other buildings.
>
> The only reason why you would say that is because you're just assuming the cars were right next to the buildings and were hit by falling debris...this is not the case!

A smouldering piece of paper can ignite a car. Cars a pretty flammable especially when you take no remedial action to put them out.
I've seen a car utterly burnt out in a parking lot surrounded by untouched vehicles and similarly cars which have all been burnt out due to one car on fire.
Fires are unpredictable, cars are flammable. There was clearly lots of floating smouldering debris as can be seen by the depositions of ash, dust and paper covering a large area after the event.

Three multi storey buildings were destroyed and two jet airliners crashed - how many burnt put vehicles would you expect as you clearly believe 1400 is too many?

A lot seems to be made of pictures of vehicles on FDR drive which are burnt out and piled up. To my (trained) eye they look like they have been towed and dumped. Still that is the kind of conclusion you get when their is no provenance or timing for photos.
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:

In addition I have no idea what contribution moving vehicles enveloped in dust or driving blind into dust clouds panic and confusion and thus being involved in crashes would make to the figures.
Bruce Hooker - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Just looked at your burnt cars video and really it's not very convincing. For example the burnt bus, it may not have been all metal, often fibreglass is used which burns more easily than metal, leaving just the frames, or, it's difficult to see from the low resolution, it could also have been aluminium, very common for coaches and which melts at low temperature, typically in the sort of fires you see in torched buses as in the Paris suburbs riots of a few years ago. On the other hand most car bodywork is pressed steel which will not melt in an ordinary car fire. Clearly neither of the two experts are aware of such basic facts. Nor are they aware that nowadays some car panels are plastic - on one of mine the bonnet and front wings in plastic so when the car burns these panels burn after melting very quickly, leaving the rest of the steel bodywork intact, except for the paint work.

As for the missing engines, they don't appear to be missing at the level of resolution I can see, the air filters and plastic covers on the top of the engines have burnt away, obviously but the engines could still be there, we can't see because of the bodywork.... etc etc.

All the remarks made on this clip can be explained by applying a little practical knowledge of the events shown, no need for anything odder. We don't know how far away they were from the fires, that's true, but given the debris lying around they must have been near enough for paper and so on to blow there so not that far and if some of this paper was burning and under the cars or buses, or blew in though an open window it would easily have set the car on fire - every Saturday night in France loads of cars are burnt, for fun, to claim insurance or whatever but no one has suggested it was some kind of WMD yet... the photos the next day look very similar.
Mooncat - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Dead frustrating isn't it when you know you're right but people keep coming back at you with these common sense answers.

Keep fighting the good fight though.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to EeeByGum: I agree. We don't know when some of the pictures were taken as we weren't the ones taking the photos...we have to make a judgement. Is the source credible or not? If you say no then SOME of the pictures won't be credible however SOME of them will. For example there is a picture of burnt out cars BEFORE WTC7 comes down (which is still in the background). This will prove that the picture was taken on the day.

I disagree that they could have been burned by falling jet fuel as this is illogical (jet fuel would immediately ignite - hence the massive fireball) and there is no video evidence indicating this.

Some cars would have been crushed but none of these cars in question are anywhere near falling debris. Here is the link again:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted

There is no doubt that some people were burnt due to falling debris etc however when I'm referring to the burnt cars, they are well away from the buildings and the only possible cause could be from within the dust cloud. Seeing as the people are not from the enveloping dust cloud I suggest that the cars shouldn't either.
Bruce Hooker - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> and the only possible cause could be from within the dust cloud.

Or burning paper, there's loads of paper around.
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to EeeByGum) I agree. We don't know when some of the pictures were taken as we weren't the ones taking the photos...we have to make a judgement. Is the source credible or not? If you say no then SOME of the pictures won't be credible however SOME of them will. For example there is a picture of burnt out cars BEFORE WTC7 comes down (which is still in the background). This will prove that the picture was taken on the day.
>
> I disagree that they could have been burned by falling jet fuel as this is illogical (jet fuel would immediately ignite - hence the massive fireball) and there is no video evidence indicating this.
>
> Some cars would have been crushed but none of these cars in question are anywhere near falling debris. Here is the link again:
>
> http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
>
> There is no doubt that some people were burnt due to falling debris etc however when I'm referring to the burnt cars, they are well away from the buildings and the only possible cause could be from within the dust cloud. Seeing as the people are not from the enveloping dust cloud I suggest that the cars shouldn't either.


Hold on..

So no video evidence = didn't happen..

Yet the huge ray gun from space noone saw or knew existed did...
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: You are a twit. I've never mentioned the towers were hit by a ray gun...why don't you go troll somewhere else?
tony on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) You are a twit. I've never mentioned the towers were hit by a ray gun...why don't you go troll somewhere else?

You keep linking to a site that claims that the damage was done by a directed energy weapon, which is, to all intents and purposes, a ray gun.

However, that site, the one you keep linking to, does admit that there's no knowledge of the type of energy which is being directed, or how the energy is generated, or directed, or how it impacts on matter and causes damage. Apart from that, it's an astonishingly stupid site.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Ya, loads of paper but I don't see any evidence of paper on fire.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: The website also just happens to have a high collection of photographic evidence of burnt out cars...have you seen the pics?
jkarran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> There is no doubt that some people were burnt due to falling debris etc however when I'm referring to the burnt cars, they are well away from the buildings and the only possible cause could be from within the dust cloud. Seeing as the people are not from the enveloping dust cloud I suggest that the cars shouldn't either.

No it's *not* the only possible cause, hot or burning debris in the dust is just one possible cause. You've been offered several credible alternatives.

I presume you mean people in the dust aren't burned? There's nothing magic hidden in the dust, just a lot of very energetic debris some of it hot, some on fire. Some people got lucky and got out of it, many didn't.

jk
tony on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony) The website also just happens to have a high collection of photographic evidence of burnt out cars...have you seen the pics?

Yes. It's a bunch of burned out cars.

So what do you think of the directed energy weapon idea? Gibberish or what?
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to EeeByGum) I agree. We don't know when some of the pictures were taken as we weren't the ones taking the photos...we have to make a judgement. Is the source credible or not? If you say no then SOME of the pictures won't be credible however SOME of them will. For example there is a picture of burnt out cars BEFORE WTC7 comes down (which is still in the background). This will prove that the picture was taken on the day.
>
> I disagree that they could have been burned by falling jet fuel as this is illogical (jet fuel would immediately ignite - hence the massive fireball) and there is no video evidence indicating this.
>
> Some cars would have been crushed but none of these cars in question are anywhere near falling debris. Here is the link again:
>
> http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
>
> There is no doubt that some people were burnt due to falling debris etc however when I'm referring to the burnt cars, they are well away from the buildings and the only possible cause could be from within the dust cloud. Seeing as the people are not from the enveloping dust cloud I suggest that the cars shouldn't either.

I'm not clear where all the "evidence" suggesting that the burnt out cars are any significant distance from the towers, is
Even that judywoods nonsense only refers to the ones on FDR drive which apparently have been towed there. The alternative seemingly being a beam weapon having run the length of the drive igniting all cars, totally unseen.
jkarran - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Ya, loads of paper but I don't see any evidence of paper on fire.

FFS! It's been said countless times, the paper arrives after the cars are ignited.

Jet fuel lights cars
Cars burn, fire dept busy with more pressing matters
Tower falls
More cars burn
Paper from fallen towers and blast damaged offices blows past burning cars
Some of it burns, most of it blows away

Which bit don't you understand?
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: Really? So much for keen observational skills...
Below the picture of the police vehicle is a birds eye view image of Lower Manhattan...here you will find where the pictures are taken.
Significant enough for you?
tony on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
>
> Even that judywoods nonsense only refers to the ones on FDR drive which apparently have been towed there. The alternative seemingly being a beam weapon having run the length of the drive igniting all cars, totally unseen.

That would be quite weird. The planning meeting would have been interesting:
"Okay, so we've got two hijacked planes, piloted by Saudis so that we have a pretext to invade Iraq, to fly into the WTC, we've got a cruise missile dressed up as a Boeing to fly into the Pentagon, what else do we need to do to attract attention?"
"How about a ray gun blitzing cars down FDR Drive. After all, people might miss the WTC towers collapsing but they'll be real pissed if their cars get burned."
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran: Wow...I don't know what to say...please see my last response to Off-duty to see how far away some of the cars are. I'm sure you will agree...JET FUEL WOULD NOT REACH THIS FAR!!!!!!
Jonny2vests - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) You are a twit. I've never mentioned the towers were hit by a ray gun...why don't you go troll somewhere else?

You linked to a page all about Directed Energy Weapons.
Jim Brooke - on 07 Feb 2013
A bestiary of the 9/11 truth movement - http://bit.ly/uz0Is5

I wonder which sort we have here?

Sir Chasm - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> [...]
>
> You linked to a page all about Directed Energy Weapons.

No he didn't, that never happened. Maybe it looked like it happened, but it definitely didn't happen. I don't know what did happen, but that definitely didn't.
tony on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to jkarran) Wow...I don't know what to say...please see my last response to Off-duty to see how far away some of the cars are. I'm sure you will agree...JET FUEL WOULD NOT REACH THIS FAR!!!!!!

You don't seem very keen on the idea that cars burned at the scene of the WTC but were then towed and dumped on FDR Drive. Why not?
EeeByGum - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> (jet fuel would immediately ignite - hence the massive fireball)
Ok - so we are going to have to agree that we don't actually know if it was the jet fuel, because you assume it spontaneously combusts yet I am unsure one way or the other.

What we do know, is that there was quite a lot of burning stuff going on in the hour or so before the towers collapsed. I have just had a quick look and you can certainly see firey somethings raining down from the initial impact. Whether these are sufficient to ignite cars, I don't know.

> Some cars would have been crushed but none of these cars in question are anywhere near falling debris. Here is the link again:

And for the umpteenth time. Maybe the burned out / crushed cars were moved after it all happened and then photographed? Is that not a feasible explanation? I believe there are eye witness reports that back up this concept as well.

Jim Brooke - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> You linked to a page all about Directed Energy Weapons.

The link I posted above suggests that a majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists have not actually looked at the material... ;-)
Jonny2vests - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to jkarran) Wow...I don't know what to say...please see my last response to Off-duty to see how far away some of the cars are. I'm sure you will agree...JET FUEL WOULD NOT REACH THIS FAR!!!!!!

Imagine for a moment that whatever it is that you believe happened that day was the official story. Now imagine us as conspiracy theorists. Now try and picture how much of an easier time we would have picking holes than you are.

...maybe the cars were ignited by each other, debris etc. I swear I saw a film of cars being moved, maybe the far away ones were moved there?? Oooooh.
...maybe the third tower fell down due to fire damage.
...how come the DEW weapon went unnoticed?
...how did they manage to hide a jet liner?
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Really? So much for keen observational skills...
> Below the picture of the police vehicle is a birds eye view image of Lower Manhattan...here you will find where the pictures are taken.
> Significant enough for you?

With respect that picture shows the wtc and then Fdr drive. You know, fdr drive where all the vehicles were towed too. After the event
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Maybe some kids set them on fire. Once events took hold, all the police and fire services were concentrating on the twin towers. Perfect recipe for some hoodlums to have some fun, remember the London riots?

I agree it's not very plausable, but I think it is more likely than Dr Evil's plasma beam
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: If the evidence supported that then I'd go with that...do you see the parking lot full of cars? I don't think tow trucks would park them so neatly. :)
Jim Brooke - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Game of Conkers:
>
> I agree it's not very plausable, but I think it is more likely than Dr Evil's plasma beam

*Unless* you already know there is a conspiracy behind the scenes...
Bruce Hooker - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Ya, loads of paper but I don't see any evidence of paper on fire.

All that ash perhaps? Nothing is burning when the photos were taken, not even the cars.
ads.ukclimbing.com
tony on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony) If the evidence supported that then I'd go with that...do you see the parking lot full of cars? I don't think tow trucks would park them so neatly. :)

You mean the parking lot captioned: Toasted cars in a lot near the WTC

Anyway, the ray gun - what do you reckon - fact or fiction?
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: I think you will that is not correct. There are pictures of cars on fire.
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony) If the evidence supported that then I'd go with that...do you see the parking lot full of cars? I don't think tow trucks would park them so neatly. :)

The parking lot is within two or three blocks of the WTC. As can be clearly seen in the photgraphs it is clearly filled with debris as a result of both towers collapsing.
Interestingly the burnt out cars are interspersed with untouched cars in a manner identical to car park fires that I have seen (without the involvement of beam weapons at all)
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: Thre is debris but I don't see parts of the buildings...unless I'm looking at the wrong picture...which one are you referring too?
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: you are without doubt a complete fool for beleiving the rubbish you have been watching on youtube and the conspiracy ebsites you obviously get turned on by.
6 years ago me and a mate were in a bar in new york,we started talking to a man who was a fireman that day.
he was telling us what happened and i can tell you its nothing like the b.s you are talking.
he lost friends and work colleagues that day.if you said some of the stuff you are saying here,im sure would have dragged you down the back alley in little italy never to be seen again.

if you dont know what happened why do you feel the need to make up the most ellaberate story you can?

i could say on a nutbag website this
the people above the impacts were people who were going to kill them selves anyway so the government paid them off to be actors and add a reality to it.
sounds stupid,but you could easily convince some thats what happened.
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: there is a site that shows are proper study on the whole event.it was done by engineers,demolition experts.its condsidered the study that answers all the questions
i cant remember what it is called though,any ideas?
will try and see if i can find it
dissonance - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:

> That would be quite weird. The planning meeting would have been interesting:

oh come on. If you had secretly invented such a powerful weapon I bet you would be wanting to try it out.
Its either that or they had some seriously militant cyclists as agents who decided to use up the leftover explosives on any cars they could find.
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to off-duty) Thre is debris but I don't see parts of the buildings...unless I'm looking at the wrong picture...which one are you referring too?

I'm not sure what you mean "parts of buildings". The parking lot is filled with debris that has ended up there as a result of the collapse of the buildimgs.
The parking lot can clearly be seen getting engulfed as a result of the collapse of each tower.
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s: i think this is what i was looking for wtc 7 explaination


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
Eric9Points - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) You are a twit. I've never mentioned the towers were hit by a ray gun...why don't you go troll somewhere else?

No you keep saying that the ray gun theory is "interesting" which implies that you lend it some credibility rather than dismissing it as utter shite like any other person who isn't a bit hard of thinking.

I think it's you who should go and troll somewhere else.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s: That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I'd have you know that many of those same firemen would disagree with you and do disagree with the official version. You can find their testimonies online if you care to search.
I think you will also find alot of the family members who lost loved ones that day would disagree with you and the official version and you can see their outcry's in the 9-11 Commission Equiries that were conducted where their anger boiled over due to certain questions being dodged. You will see many families asking for a proper investigation and see how the families simply refused to allow Henry Kissinger to be the overseer of the investigation.
I think you will find that many architects, engineers, pilots, service men and women disagree with you and the official version. Once again you can find their testimonies online.
I think you will find that as time has passed MORE people are questioning the official version and calling for a new investigation.
I'm not making any stories up. Throughout this entire discussion I've stated why I don't believe the official story and have used observable facts to corroborate this.
I won't be responding to you again. Apologies in advance.
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: there are not as many people who disagree with the true story as you seem to think.
i start my training as a firefighter this month and im sure the subject will come up.
families of the victims will always want more answers,of course they are going to be angry that it could happen on U.S soil
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) You are a twit. I've never mentioned the towers were hit by a ray gun...why don't you go troll somewhere else?

* by - Sircumfrins ? on - 00:10 Tue
In reply to IainRUK: I read it. What's your point?
Why did the cars get burnt to such a degree when they were well away from any falling towers? Are you saying that embers set cars alight?

What do you think of this link?

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

Ermm..

And I'm still waiting to hear where flight 77 is?

You don't qestion.. you grasp any little 'fact'.. which is normally undocumented fiction.. you want to believe that this was a US organised attack so you are only looking for that evidence..

It just makes no sense.. a bomb would have.. even deliberately lax security to let them get away with it.. but star wars beams.. cruise missiles dressed as airliners.. HQ's in the twin towers.. madness with 0 evidence to support them.
gritrash0 - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
Figures 66(l), 66(m) and 66(n) show a burnt police car on FDR drive. These pictures are directly above an explanation as to why these cars weren't towed.
'First, there is no evidence that this was done. Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks, transport them, only to dump them in a busy thoroughfare for storage. These wrecks would have had to be picked up yet again and transported again. If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up on FDR drive, as well, if it was such a good storage area. Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient. If reported, it would have been a minor scandal. Fourth, we might be wrong about the facts here, but it looks like the motive for this speculation about shifting wrecks around lower Manhattan is to protect the official story or thermite story or other pet theories. We fail to see any other explanation for such a "forced" interpretation for these photographs.'
However:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208961
shows the car was moved from (or to) very close to the WTCs, heres the location of the Millenium Hotel (the hotel in the background):
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ie=UTF-8&q=the+millenium+hilton+new+york&fb=1&gl=uk&h...
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0: the james randi link instantly shows what the judy wood claims are made of.
Bruce Hooker - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) I think you will that is not correct. There are pictures of cars on fire.

Not in the video, there are fire engines and firemen though so with the smoke or steam it looks like everything has been dowsed in water - the ground looks sort of like a grey mud. Looking at the map and given the height of the building burning paper or debris could have reached here. The woman doesn't mention wind direction, if it wasn't in the right direction she would surely have mentioned this as "further evidence". I don't think all the cars have been towed there they look as if they had burnt in place then put out. The fresh white paper could have come later on, the grey ash is no longer burning but it might have been when it set the cars alight - very easy to set a car alight.

I often have quite large bonfires on a site I'm clearing and it's amazing how dry leaves and paper from books or magazines can be wafted aloft by the updraft from a big fire - and when I say big that is minute compared to the fires in New York that day - and before you know it you've set the grass alight 50 to 100 yards away. Sometimes even trees can catch fire very easily so I have to be careful not to burn when the wind is blowing towards neighbours.

Even moderate sized fires can be quite astonishing, they seem to have a mind of their own. Take a look at reports of the Dresden bombings, the fires set up such drafts that fire storms were created and people were pulled off their feet and sucked in... So before looking for "original" solutions it's probably worth examining the more usual ones when fires are concerned. IMO.

Mikkel - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s:

just learned from that site that it was the company i work for who shot down flight 93 using one of the company Falcon jets.
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Mikkel: or even a falcon which was flying past to land at johnstown airport
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
:n reply to Sircumfrins:
>
> I'm not making any stories up. Throughout this entire discussion I've stated why I don't believe the official story and have used observable facts to corroborate this.

Well you haven't really stated "why" you disbelieve the official account, and when you say "observable facts" what you mean is interpretations of photos and videos.

I'm all for questioning evidence - but when your main source appears to be a loon who appears to have produced a theory involving lasers and burning cars without ONE SINGLE comparison with a normally burnt car, then the source starts to look a little weaker. When that is coupled with trying to make a serious point about (light floaty) paper being present unburnt at the scene of (heavy non moving) cars in a post event photograph, the weakness becomes more wobbly.
When the claims about vehicles being towed to FDR is dismissed on the basis for there being "no evidence" (as opposed to the "evidence" of the invisible secret beam weapons supposedly involved) then anyone with an ounce of critical thinking has to start to question that account a bit...don't they?
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I think YOU will find that more and more people are joining this post to tell you what a numpty you are being.

And that's being kind.

In my job, I do statistical analysis.

We formulate a null and alternate hypothesis (HO and HA) and then we use data to test them.

Data. That's reliable, sampled, representative and unbiased. We go off something that can be substantiated with a margin of error and level of confidence.

We don't act because somebody makes things up and shouts "RAY GUN CONSPIRACY"
ads.ukclimbing.com
Matt Rees - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

Sircumfrins HAS to be a troll who can't leave it alone. Nobody can be that stupid.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I tell you what. You get the US Government to release the cctv footage from the side of the Pentagon where it was hit, the cctv footage from the gas station which points in the direction of the damaged side of the pentagon, the cctv footage from the highway, the cctv footage from the nearby Arlington National Cemetery and the rest of the cctv cameras in the surrounding area and you will have your answer.
You'd think they would release the footage so the conspiracies could be squashed...wouldn't you?
dissonance - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Mikkel:

> just learned from that site that it was the company i work for who shot down flight 93 using one of the company Falcon jets.

as in the civilian exec jet or the F-16 fighting falcon?
if the latter i have to admit i would start being a tad suspicious of why a company would have them.
dissonance - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> You'd think they would release the footage so the conspiracies could be squashed...wouldn't you?

they did release some footage. Also how useful do you think they would be.
Dont you ever look at cctv released for robberies etc and think "well the suspect is definitely human shaped, maybe"
Thats with people as well and not something moving at several hundred miles an hour.

Now a counter question. If they went to all that effort why do you think they havent faked up the cctv? wouldnt be that hard compared to some of the things people are claiming they did.
IainRUK - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: So what you are saying is you don't know..

Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> [...]
>
> they did release some footage. Also how useful do you think they would be.

Can anyone else see what a ridiculous statement this person has made?! I pray that you are joking otherwise I would leave this thread as soon as possible!

How useful would it be...hmmm...well...I don't know. Maybe it would settle the whole "Did a plane really fly into the side of the Pentagon" issue one and for all!!! UNREAL!!!

And everyone thinks I'm an Epsilom!
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Do you have any of the following:

1. Theories of your own?
2. Evidence?
3. Read number 2 again.
Sircumfrins - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Exactly, I don't know what hit the Pentagon...but I don't think it was a plane and the cctv footage would be helpful. Wouldn't you agree?
Rampikino - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Did you read my post about hypotheses?

Apply that method to you pentagon claims.



How are you getting on?




Any evidence yet?




No?
mark s - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: hahaha explain the numerous parts of a plane found.or the eyewitness accounts or the radar showing where the plane was.

there is NOTHING to suggest it was a missile.

you are going from 1 cctv camera that takes spaced out pics.

you have to be a troll.
saying that are you the lad who thought he would climb 8a in 3 months from font 6b or something?
dissonance - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> Can anyone else see what a ridiculous statement this person has made?! I pray that you are joking otherwise I would leave this thread as soon as possible!

byeeee

> How useful would it be...hmmm...well...I don't know. Maybe it would settle the whole "Did a plane really fly into the side of the Pentagon" issue one and for all!!! UNREAL!!!

no because muppets will whine about it not being in colour and not being perfect.
Take the fact you are busy ignoring the fact video was released.

Now if it would settle the argument why dont they fake it?
Epic Ebdon - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:

> However:
> http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=208961
> shows the car was moved from (or to) very close to the WTCs, heres the location of the Millenium Hotel (the hotel in the background):

What I like about that pair of pictures (other than making the wacko theories for that particular car clearly nonsense) is that it demonstrates how things that look odd at first glance (like the odd burning on the passenger door, with a clean line on the passenger door behind it), do actually have perfectly simple explanations. In the pre-towed picture, the door is open, obvious when you think about it!

I just get saddened by people coming up with ridiculous ideas about stuff that they know nothing about, far-fetched fanciful ideas that don't adhere to the laws of physics, and invariably involve great secrecy. The ideas usually involve someone saying "well, according to the laws of physics...", which tends to really mean "according to something I learned by rote in primary school, and am now applying incorrectly". It's like moon landing conspiracies - people that believe in such nonsense should read more about how they overcame the problems - the real story is invariably far more interesting and awe inspiring than the conspiracy theories.

Tim

Mikkel - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s: thats the one i mean, it must be the one who did it.
Jim Brooke - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> You'd think they would release the footage so the conspiracies could be squashed...wouldn't you?

Well, no. (If it exists and they don't already have some other reason not to release it) that would give the impression that the conspiracy theories are worthy of refuting. Any conspiracy theorist worth their salt would come up with a reason why the newly released footage was not proof of what you are asking. This is the nature of conspiracy theory - they simply *cannot* be quashed, because conspiracy theorists are not seeking the truth, they are seeking evidence for their theory. Big difference.
IainRUK - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: No.. many witnesses saw it go in..

But if the plane didn't hit.. where is it?

As said Occams Razor.. simplest explanation..

Go an about the damage.. the whole.. it didn't matter if it was a plane or a cruise missile for the US's response.. so why go to all the hassle of kidnapping a plane, planting wreckage at the scene.. if you are just going to use a missile..
radson - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

How does United 93 fit into the equation as well?
Sir Chasm - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to radson: Go on then, I'll bite, what issues do you have about United 93?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: And everyone thinks I'm an Epsilom

Nope, Epsilon...and a minus at that!
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Jim Brooke: I would strongly disagree with your point. Not every conspiracy theorist is irrational.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I'll say it again...release the footage and squash the conspiracy.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Game of Conkers: Err...just hit the wrong letter on the keyboard. ;)
dissonance - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) I'll say it again...release the footage and squash the conspiracy.

really. If there was perfect evidence then the nutters would be claiming that showed it had been faked.
Or alternatively just demand even more. Why arent you honest to yourself?

However here you go, video footage.
Unsurprisingly though a standard cctv isnt that much use at picking up a jet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14395484

mark s - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to IainRUK) I'll say it again...release the footage and squash the conspiracy.

you really dont get it do you?
conspiracy theorists would not accept that as proof,they would call the video fake.

its like the moon landing story
photos have been released showing the landing site and tracks,but the morons say they are faked.

conspiracy nutters are not looking for the truth,they are looking for answers to back their stupid claims.
the reason they keep coming up with more and more crazy ideas,because they dont find the answers they want
Rampikino - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

You're a strange deluded chap aren't you.

If you wander back through the long and varied posts on this thread you will find that on a number of occasions you have been asked something known as QUESTIONS. These QUESTIONS are requests for your response. They require some thought and something that will address their content. Have you actually answered any of these QUESTIONS directly?

Perhaps I should go back and make a list of them for you.

On second thoughts, I cannot be bothered - as you clearly cannot be bothered to pay any attention to anything but the wacky nonsense that you have been feeding yourself.

You threatened to leave this thread yesterday. Please, please PLEASE carry out that threat.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance: I am being honest! There is no doubt that there are people who have some crazy theories however video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon would be hard to refute.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino: Or, alternatively, I don't have the time to keep repeating myself?
tony on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

So, the ray gun - fact or fiction? You haven't answered that one.
dissonance - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to dissonance) I am being honest! There is no doubt that there are people who have some crazy theories however video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon would be hard to refute.

ah the classic "someone else says" aka "teach the (manufactured) controversy"
You seem to also be ignoring the fact i posted a link to footage of it hitting.
Rampikino - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Answer the questions then.

Was there a ray gun?

That's simple enough.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: I don't see any evidence for a ray gun.
tony on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony) I don't see any evidence for a ray gun.

So, do you think the directed energy theory is cobblers?

If you agree that it is cobblers, why the f*ck did you link to a site which exists to promulgate such a theory?

And, if you agree it's cobblers, how do you explain the burned out cars on that website if not by the myriad commonsense responses you've been presented with?
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to tony: I wouldn't dismiss a theory outright just because it sounds farout. We have no idea what weapons and technology are outside of the public domain.
Have you read the information about the seismographic readings for the Seattle King Dome controlled demolition and the seismographic readings for Towers 1 & 2?
If the readings and data supplied are true then it does open a new can of worms.
See my previous responses about toasted cars.
a lakeland climber on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Several hundred thousand tons of debris falling to the ground causes earth tremors? Whatever next! The King Dome demolition and the WTC plane initated collapse are likely to have similar seismic traces. Were the "similarities" discussed and analysed by qualified seismologists or just another fruitcake out to make a name for themselves.

There was a U2 concert in Belfast or Dublin where the crowd jumping up and down was picked up by seismic recorders. Or maybe it was aliens.

ALC
Rampikino - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

So.

You don't see any evidence for a ray gun, but you are not dismissing it right?

Is that what you are saying?
tony on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony) I wouldn't dismiss a theory outright just because it sounds farout.

So you'd be willing to concede that it's possible that all the damage was done as a result of two hijacked planes crashing into the WTC?

> We have no idea what weapons and technology are outside of the public domain.

Since we have no idea about them, it seems more than a little far fetched to bring them into any rational discussion.

> Have you read the information about the seismographic readings for the Seattle King Dome controlled demolition and the seismographic readings for Towers 1 & 2?
> If the readings and data supplied are true then it does open a new can of worms.

No it doesn't. It may have escaped your notice, but they're very different structures. The idea that you can translate from one to another is gibberish.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino: I don't see any evidence for a ray gun but many anomalies (namely science) indicate that the collapse was not brought down as the official version states.
balmybaldwin - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Rampikino) I don't see any evidence for a ray gun but many anomalies (namely science) indicate that the collapse was not brought down as the official version states.

You've got that all wrong, it's the science that indicates that id DID come down in the way reported.

The problem is you don't understand it
Rampikino - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

You are such good value for money, do you know that?

Tell me about this "science" you have.

I tell you what. Write a single post laying out each of your hypotheses, your evidence and your conclusions.

Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
> [...]
>
> So you'd be willing to concede that it's possible that all the damage was done as a result of two hijacked planes crashing into the WTC?

I think you would agree that the towers survived the initial impact and were brought down by fire (according to the official story)?
I don't believe that the fires would have led to the full collapse we witnessed.

>
> [...]
>
> Since we have no idea about them, it seems more than a little far fetched to bring them into any rational discussion.

This is true however assumptions are made all the time. Most theories use previously unknown factors to support claims.
Rampikino - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Rampikino:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> You are such good value for money, do you know that?
>
> Tell me about this "science" you have.
>
> I tell you what. Write a single post laying out each of your hypotheses, your evidence and your conclusions.


TRY AGAIN
ads.ukclimbing.com
mark s - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: what we have here is a regular nut job alex jones david icke wannabe
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=379182&v=1#x5489287
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=340977&v=1#x5020735
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=366650&v=1#x5351352
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=335352&v=1#x4942312
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=311061&v=1#x4594629

you pal have been well and truly busted as a tin foil hat wearing idiot.
those are just a few of your 'argh the government are controlling us' threads.

you will never believe the truth ,you are just a youtube hero who likes to argue with people who are willing to accept the most likely answer to happenings
mark s - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s: i came acroos the david icke website a while ago and joined just so i could put a rational view on the forum.

i got banned for trolling because i wasnt willing to believe the crap the idiots were writing
i was never nasty or anything i just replied to people saying pretty much the above to comments but they didnt like it and booted me off.
talk about the free speech they dearly want to defend and their right to have these crazy views
tony on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> I don't believe that the fires would have led to the full collapse we witnessed.

But it's apparent to all that you don't have the knowledge to have any definitive idea as to what happened. The fact that you linked to a website which has a photo of a woodburning stove with a caption to the effect that 'heat doesn't damage this metal' says everything about your credulity.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: I really don't care what people think about me.
I've met UKC members at crags before and we've chatted and they are more than surprised at how rational and logical I am (and extremely motivated by climbing hard).
I'm always willing to admit when I don't know something and enjoy having my beliefs challenged.
Maybe some of us should meet up, go climbing, then have a massive discussion over some drinks?
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins: Fair play to you Sircumfrins, you have stood your ground and kept civil throughout. A rareity these days...even if your ideas are a bit out there.
jkarran - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

> I don't see any evidence for a ray gun but many anomalies (namely science) indicate that the collapse was not brought down as the official version states.

No. Simply stating it does not make that true. That is in fact quite the opposite of true, it's a pile of made up horseshit you've been told that fits with your distorted world view and that you've repeated so often that it seems true to you an like minded folk.

Have you ever actually read NIST's report? It's lengthy but actually quite accessible even to a layman like myself.

Science, specifically the branch off applied science known as engineering can offer a perfectly credible and testable theories as to how this all happened without having to invoke imagined unknown weapons or anything beyond that included in the mainstream narrative. The fact some people, the fruitcakes, the grieving and those such as yourself see treachery in the holes (mostly holes in an individual's understanding) does not mean their wacky alternative theory is true and that the scientific explanation is a deception, it means they've failed to understand the science. This is in part the fault of their psychology and in part the fault of those who's job it is to communicate science clearly.

jk
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Game of Conkers: Thanks! :)
My invitation is open. If people would like to go for a climb then have a discussion afterwards I'd be super-keen!
I'd have to limit the travels to the Peak (or south of it) as I live in Southampton.
I don't check my e-mail address, I've registered with, very often so if anyone is keen mention it in a post or something.
Matt Rees - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to jkarran:

Well said that man. Extremely well put.
off-duty - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

Perhaps you could clarify whether you still hold the belief -
a)That vehicles a long distance from the wtc were burnt (eg fdr drive)
B) That there is anything suspicious about their ignition.

dissonance - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins)
>
> Perhaps you could clarify whether you still hold the belief -

its like punching fog. he will either simply ignore you or switch to something else for a bit before returning.

Rampikino - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to Sircumfrins) what we have here is a regular nut job alex jones david icke wannabe
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=379182&v=1#x5489287
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=340977&v=1#x5020735
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=366650&v=1#x5351352
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=335352&v=1#x4942312
> http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=311061&v=1#x4594629
>
> you pal have been well and truly busted as a tin foil hat wearing idiot.
> those are just a few of your 'argh the government are controlling us' threads.
>
> you will never believe the truth ,you are just a youtube hero who likes to argue with people who are willing to accept the most likely answer to happenings


Oh my days! Is this the Chemtrails guy?

In that case, as they say in Dragon's Den...

I'm Out!
Jim Brooke - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Jim Brooke) I would strongly disagree with your point. Not every conspiracy theorist is irrational.

But of course you disagree with my point - all conspiracy theorists think they are rational truth seekers, and none of the accept the possibility of self-bias. That's why they're conspiracy theorists.
Jim Brooke - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to Rampikino) I don't see any evidence for a ray gun but many anomalies (namely science) indicate that the collapse was not brought down as the official version states.

I always find it slightly insulting when people like you say stuff like "the science says". I am a scientist and I don't claim to speak for "science" - so who the f*** gave you the right to?
The New NickB - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
>
> I think you would agree that the towers survived the initial impact and were brought down by fire (according to the official story)?
> I don't believe that the fires would have led to the full collapse we witnessed.
>
I have mentioned this before on related threads, but on 9/11 between the planes striking but well before the first tower fell, I rang a friend, conversation was along the lines of are you watching this. He had it on in the office at work, work being the office of a global structural engineering consultancy. They had been discussing the structure of the building and he told me that they were convinced that they would both come down as a result of the plane strikes and fires. An hour or so later, they did.

So either
A) they were in on the conspiracy;
B) they were all wrong, but accidentally guessed what whoever planned it would have as the official reason.
C) they predicted the collapse correctly based on some knowkedge of the building and hundreds of years of combined experience of the behaviour of structures and the official most likely cause isn't too far off the truth.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Once again, I extend the invitation to you? Should be easy to make me look like a fool during a conversation surely?
gritrash0 - on 08 Feb 2013
Some criticism aimed at Sircumfrins in this thread:

unquestioning ignorance
closed minded
9/11 morons
you are without doubt a complete fool
troll
numpty
stupid
You're a strange deluded chap aren't you
a regular nut job alex jones david icke wannabe
tin foil hat wearing idiot

Sircumfrins has been told he has a 'distorted world view', Do posters on here not believe that their own views of the world we live in have been distorted or manipulated in any way? (Sometimes this is called arrogance). I don't believe he has expressed a concrete view on anything and has demonstrated he is open to ideas. This should be applauded not demeaned. Try and point out why you think his ideas are wrong by-all-means but to vilify is not constructive, even if it makes you feel big and clever.
How about we agree that sometimes people questioning those who have authority and power over us are proved right. What we do when we mock those that have a different view is reinforce that feeling amongst ourselves and others that to question is wrong. People end up self-censoring because they're scared of being scorned by the group. I for one enjoy debating with people who have ideas different from my own, no matter how unlikely I believe them to be, although I find it better to do this in person and not in forums that quickly turn into an exercise in GroupThink.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0: I applaud him unequivocally.
off-duty - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:

Perhaps if you reread the thread you would see a number of people constructively tackiling his misconceptions of science and "evidence". Unfortunately he doesn't really reply to their points.

Interesting to be accused of "groupthink" when one point he raised in his own defence was that more and more people are coming to the view of a conspiracy.
Personally I don't care about the popularity of a theory - I'm more interested in the evidence that supports (or discredits) it.
gritrash0 - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to gritrash0)
> Interesting to be accused of "groupthink"

It is interesting how quickly in the thread you bring up the holocaust.
dissonance - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:
> Some criticism aimed at Sircumfrins in this thread:

i think the troll is inaccurate, sadly.

> This should be applauded not demeaned.

not really. There is a difference between being open minded and letting your brain fall out. After something is shown to be incorrect there is no point going "Ohhhhh just maybe it is right".
If he was being open minded he would put forward alternate hypothesis with ways to falsify them if needed.

> How about we agree that sometimes people questioning those who have authority and power over us are proved right.

of course. I would tend towards consider that being the default position. However its a case of weighing up the evidence rather than always treating those in authority as guilty.
I would say though that the claims being made if anything undermine the treat those in authority with suspicion because it makes it easy to poke fun and condemn everyone rather than just the fringe nutters.

> I for one enjoy debating with people who have ideas different from my own, no matter how unlikely I believe them to be

i would normally but have you noticed the lack of concrete response. the "it could be said" defence is irritating since it is difficult to engage with.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> It is interesting how quickly in the thread you bring up the holocaust.

Why is it interesting - I was responding to TobyA's post which reminded me of the thread last year where a poster who I assume by TobyA's post was sircumfrins was trying to argue that a concentration camp didn't exist.
It might well have been inappropriate - tackling the man rather than the ball, as there is probably no reason to assume one prior example of bizarre reasoning weakens a different argument.
In the same vein I'm sure Dr Judy Wood has probably published some good research in her own discipline.
If it makes you happy I''ll withdraw the reference to it. Perhaps in return might respond to my posts....
gritrash0 - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance: Some people aren't very good at putting their point across in the forum environment. I give Sircumfrins the benefit of the doubt that Judy Wood is not the only source of information to support his view, although he hasn't yet presented it!
Off-duty : I often see even moderate skeptics labelled as moon-landing conspiracist, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, flat earthers etc etc on comments under articles/news stories by people who don't want to engage in discussion and just dismiss.
off-duty - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:
> (In reply to dissonance) Some people aren't very good at putting their point across in the forum environment. I give Sircumfrins the benefit of the doubt that Judy Wood is not the only source of information to support his view, although he hasn't yet presented it!

That's a remarkable degree of benefit. Perhaps if he were to apply the benefit of the doubt to some of the "evidence" he presented we wouldn't be having this debate at all.

> Off-duty : I often see even moderate skeptics labelled as moon-landing conspiracist, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, flat earthers etc etc on comments under articles/news stories by people who don't want to engage in discussion and just dismiss.

I see. Given that a)in this case the label (even if inappropriate as I explained) is accurate to a certain degree and b)i have clearly been engaged in debate which I would like to think was (mostly) constructive, then I take it that is an apology ;-)
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to buzby78: Let me re-iterate something I said earlier...If anyone is interested in having a discussion with me, we can arrange to meet up, have a climb, have a drink and talk late into the night.
No one has responded to this.
Again, surely it would be easy to make me look like a fool?
I'm not responding to anymore questions on this topic.
Thank you.
off-duty - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I'd happily meet up with you for a pint, you come across pretty cogently and coherently, but if you don't want to debate a subject on UKC then why post?
To be honest your post on concentration camps led to some interesting reading and similarly in this thread I was unaware of the whole "burnt car theory" (laughable as I might find it). So, for expanding my reading, even if not answering my questions ;-) Cheers!
dissonance - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to gritrash0:

> Off-duty : I often see even moderate skeptics labelled as moon-landing conspiracist, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, flat earthers etc etc on comments under articles/news stories by people who don't want to engage in discussion and just dismiss.

and thats the problem with people sprouting inane theories about energy weapons and suchlike. It lets people deliberately muddy the water between them and any serious points being made.
Its good to be skeptical but its just as good to be skeptical about claims being made by so called skeptics.
Sircumfrins - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty: We should do it. I would definitely be super keen.
You know how it is...I get sucked in on certain subjects and to me, this is the most important subject of my generation and I feel extremely strongly about this subject.
Jim Brooke - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:
> (In reply to buzby78) Let me re-iterate something I said earlier...If anyone is interested in having a discussion with me, we can arrange to meet up, have a climb, have a drink and talk late into the night.
> No one has responded to this.
> Again, surely it would be easy to make me look like a fool?

This is another *classic* conspiracy theorist fallacy. The invitation to debate, when not accepted, used as evidence for the strength of the conspiracy argument.
Epic Ebdon - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Sircumfrins:

I'll also add my voice to those commenting on your demeanour. Well done! I still think your theories total tripe, I still wait to see any evidence from you, or anything that is even remotely difficult or troubling to explain away with just a basic knowledge of physics, but you've been remarkable at keeping your cool, even when a lot of posters were getting pretty personal.

As someone else said scepticism is healthy, science itself is inherently sceptical, but not all official stories are incorrect, and not ever innocent mistake is a cover up.

So, congratulations on your personality, commiserations on your theory.

Tim

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.