Honorable Warriors

Honorable Warriors is one of the greatest factions of all time!!!
 
HomePortalCalendarGalleryFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 9/11: an inside job?

Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: 9/11: an inside job?   Sat Jul 10, 2010 4:39 pm

The topic was started in another thread, so I decided to start a new thread rather than get sidetracked.

Was 9/11 an inside job? My claim: no. Two main reasons:
1) We have an organization that has the motivation and capability to carry out the attack and takes credit for it: Al-Qaeda.
2) I have seen no credible evidence that suggests 9/11 was done by the government. If this were the only argument I made, then it would be an appeal to ignorance fallacy; but in this topic, the null hypothesis rests on neither side, so if there is not compelling evidence on the other side, and reason 1 is correct, then my position holds the most evidence for it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:49 pm

Just because Alqeuda took credit for it does not mean they did it. They are just someone who took the blame. There are a number of accounts that claim to have credible evidence of 9/11 being an inside job. By chance have you done any open minded research about this particular subject? Here is a video for those who havent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_7Mzm-945c
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Tue Jul 13, 2010 1:32 pm

Yes... it doesn't necessarily mean they did it, but I've already stated that we should take them on their word if there isn't evidence to the contrary: they have the ability and motivation to do such an act.

So, claims to the contrary. Most of the stuff has been debunked by Popular Mechanic. If you see things that have not be addressed by PM, please post them; however, I will say again, I haven't seen any credible evidence that 9/11 was the result of the U.S. government's foul play.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:22 am

You wont really see any credible evidence because with the government doing the best it can to hush the conspiracy theorists the general public cannot and will not see credible evidence it was not a plane. All we can do is speculate from the evidence they have allowed us to see and then use common sense or logic. I am not foolish enough to beleive that our government is perfect with flawless individuals looking out for whats best for us. They are men just like us, just like our neighbors, or bullies we had in school, or the nerds in the chess club. They think and act and talk just like us and because of this human flaw they will always operate just like any other human would. They do what they can to benefit themselves while allowing us to think they are really helping us out. What about the bilderburg group? Not many ppl have heard of them but that are VERY REAL. Look it up. The fact that any US government offical would ever attend these meeting alone is a direct violation of the LOGAN act. Yet Bill clinton attended a meeting just a year before becoming president. Hmmmmm.....

Here is some sources that prove 911 was a cover up. If you are going to do your research please look at both sides of the arguement then draw your conclusions. I have seen the "9/11 debunked" videos/articles and i have also looked at the video/articles of the 911 conspiracy. I wasnt all into this conspiracy stuff until i started doing research on 911. I really do hope you look at some of the video i will post or articles that way you can understand both sides of the arguement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkp-PXf_qlk
(watch all 6 parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg
(looks like a bomb went off, not a plane hitting the building....)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:24 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_uojEXJEEE

And we were all told that flight 93 crashed becuase there was a struggle to regain control in the cockpit. But yet Rumsfield openly admitted just now it was shot down...Hmmmm.....i wonder.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:07 pm

All right... I can't get past 4:21 of the first of the In Plane Sight video, and they haven't even gotten to their argument yet. I know what I'm talking about when I talk about language, and that guy completely lead us into something with no other conclusion, then declared himself victor. Finish this phrase: conspiracy ______. By posing it in that way, he makes us have another word in there, then concludes that we've been conditioned to associated "conspiracy" with "theory". Well, what other word would you put in there? Conspiracy... puppy? Conspiracy... eggplant? Conspiracy... kiwi, perhaps? There simply isn't another English phrase that starts with "conspiracy"! This kind of deceitful word-play is exactly what is being accused of by the people claimed to be covering things up, but this side is proving themselves non the better. I like the Popular Mechanic article because it gathers expert opinions on the subject, but if this video is anything like Loose Change, then it's going to just be amateur "I don't know how to explain it, so it must be the government," and I'd rather not waste the time. And I have watched Loose Change, I was a truther for a while, then, after looking at credible sources, I realized that the majority of the arguments made for the conspiracy were amateur and/or ignorant mistakes (same with the moon landing conspiracy).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:25 am

Then how is it that the government knew that it was going to happen but took NO steps to prevent it. Also What about footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? They cant realease that tp the public? Why? What are they afraid of the fact that we might find out the truth? If they want to shut us truthers up then they need to give US what WE WANT. EVIDENCE!!! But they cant. They cant share what was on those red boxes in those planes. They cant show us video footage of the pentagon plane crashing, even though its one of the most heavily watched places in society, and for that 1 reason alone, i dont trust the government. If you could show me just one video of a plane hitting the pentagon i would join your side and become a beleiver. But you cant, and neither can the government becuase there was no plane. Its all a sham, its all ahoax, a false flag attack to push the patriot act through and take even more of our freedms. An excuse to go over to the middle east and rape the citizens of their oil. There is no good reason to be in iraq or afghanistan except resoureces. Its all about the benjamins baby. What good are we actualy doing? Who are we actually protecting?

Bottom line is war is profitable and peace is not. And due to this fact we will never have peace, not in my life time, not in yours, not in my kids or their kids. Until we do have one government we will always have war and even then we will have civil wars all the time.IMO therre are more clues and more small peices of evidence we were lied to and less evidence we were told the entire truth, and because of that i do not trust the government and beleive they are the ones responsible. ITS all about the OIL!
http://www.helium.com/items/415936-why-war-is-politically-beneficial
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:41 pm

I'd like to see your sources for the claim that the government took no action against 9/11 specifically. It's true that Osama Bin Laden was on our watch-list, and Clinton told Bush that Al Qaeda was not to be ignored, but there are many threats to the U.S., and we may not have had sufficient evidence to prove, at the time, that Bin Laden was particularly more threatening than other terrorists.

Next, it's possible to determine the make-up of something by seeing the results of impact. Likewise, it would be possible for a skilled person to determine many parts of the Pentagon's structure simply from viewing videos of the crash. There are national security reasons to keep the exact weaknesses of the Pentagon a secret, so it would make sense to not release films that would put us in jeopardy.

As for Afghanistan, we aren't taking the oil that they don't have, but there is an economic reason for having a secure Afghanistan: oil pipelines. Afghanistan is very nicely located for the exportation of oil, so there would be that reason to be in there; on the other hand, we went into Afghanistan very haphazardly, and there is a bit of a moral reason to try to build it up again. Afghanistan is also a great place for housing terrorists because of the political turmoil that has plagued that place since the Soviet Union's fall in 1992. Setting up a democracy there now will be preventative care from having problems in the future, so there are non-economic reasons to stabilize the region.

I agree that — especially the military section of — the government shouldn't be trusted on face-value, but there are non-government sources that discredit many of the claims of a 9/11 conspiracy. You're being very naïve if your strongest claim for a 9/11 conspiracy is: "The government said otherwise." Again, your evidence has primarily been from third-party, amateur sources, and mine from third-party, expert sources. If you can find me expert sources — credible peer-reviewed journal articles, expert architects, metallurgists, etc. — that are bringing compelling evidence, then I will listen; but if your best evidence is amateur opinion and universal distrust of the government, then I have little interest in continuing the discussion.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:37 pm

ok, i will do more research and post it here soon Wink
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:11 pm

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

Interviews and more of US military officers and their opinions about 911, check it out
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:32 am

I still don't understand why you're pointing toward people who don't have credentials for analyzing what they're talking about. A lot of the stuff seems to be from Loose Change or similar statements, and I've already pointed to Popular Mechanics to explain those claims. There is a list of experts — which is what I've been looking for — but the claims seem to be the same as what's already addressed. Again, what I want is scientific evidence that has not already been addressed in Popular Mechanics.

If you want ridicule, though, you can have it:
There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.
Unfastened Coins
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:43 am

can you explain why the towers looked as though they were a controlled demolition. Is there any other instances were a plane hit a tall steel tower and collapsed the same way. What about tower 7? It didnt even get hit and it came down just like a controlled demolition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86dBvWm9RE
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:44 pm

They looked like a controlled demolition because that's how buildings collapse given the circumstances. Try this out: How would you expect the towers to collapse? If you can't give a good example, then I don't know why you raised the question in the first place. The only reason the towers' form during collapse would be relevant would be if they did not meet expectations.

My expectation would be the top section of the tower falling as a unit while the bottom falls in on itself. Here's my logic: The Twin Towers were made unusually weak because the people constructing the building realized that money could be made by reducing the amount of support beams. The Towers were made as economic centers, so their value was measured by dollars per square feet; if you didn't need poles taking up space, then it was profitable to not have them there. So when moving stuff from above crashed into the next lowest layer, it would simply collapse in on itself; it wasn't like it was dense enough or well connected enough to fall over like a Lego tower or Jenga. And I think my prediction holds true: the south tower keeps its top section together during its decent, and the north tower didn't have enough of a top to see if it remained together during its decent.

As for another example, I don't think we even have another example of a plane hitting a tall steel tower... so no, we do not have what you're looking for, and for quite a mundane reason, too. If you want to do the research and find an example, tell me, but I don't feel like going on a wild goose chase if you're not going to meet me half way.

As for WTC7, amateur video, but it points to the extent of the fires, and Popular Mechanics points out that the fires were probably fueled by a gas line normally used for running backup generators. Unlike the popular claim, the steel structure does not have to melt for a building to come down, it only has to lose enough strength to begin warping, and a long, raging fire is capable of such a feat.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: explain this   Wed Jul 21, 2010 9:12 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=972ETepp4GI&feature=related


look at windows on right. Looks like explosions went off in side the buildings if you ask me
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:32 am

Check out this

The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai
by Alexandra Richard
Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson


Le Figaro, 11 October 2001
Posted at globalresearch.ca 2 November 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dubai, one of the seven emirates of the Federation of the United Arab Emirates, North-East of Abi-Dhabi. This city, population 350,000, was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that public enemy number one stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July.
Having taken off from the Quetta airport in Pakistan, bin Laden was transferred to the hospital upon his arrival at Dubai airport. He was accompanied by his personal physician and faithful lieutenant, who could be Ayman al-Zawahari--but on this sources are not entirely certain--, four bodyguards, as well as a male Algerian nurse, and admitted to the American Hospital, a glass and marble building situated between the Al-Garhoud and Al-Maktoum bridges.

Each floor of the hospital has two "VIP" suites and fifteen rooms. The Saudi billionnaire was admitted to the well-respected urology department run by Teerry Callaway, gallstone and infertility specialist. Dr Callaway declined to respond to our questions despite several phone calls.

As early as March, 2000, 'Asia Week,' published in Hong Kong, expressed concern for bin Laden's health, describing a serious medical problem that could put his life in danger because of "a kidney infection that is propagating itself to the liver and requires specialized treatment". According to authorized sources, bin Laden had mobile dialysis equipment shipped to his hideout in Kandahar in the first part of 2000. According to our sources, bin Laden's "travels for health reasons" have taken place before. Between 1996 and 1998, bin Laden made several trips to Dubai on business.

On September 27th, 15 days after the World Trade Center attacks, at the request of the United States, the Central Bank of the Arab Emirates announced an order to freeze assts and investments of 26 people or organisations suspected of mainting contact with bin Laden's organization, and in particular at the Dubai Islamic Bank.

"Relations between the Emirate and Saudi Arabia have always been very close," according to sources, "princes of reigning families, having recognized the Taliban regime, often travelled to Afghanistan. One of the princes of a ruling family regularily went hunting on the land of bin Laden, whom he had known and visited for many years."

There are daily flights between Dubai and Quetta by both Pakistan and Emirates Airlines. As to private planes from Saudi Arabia or from the Emirates, they regulariy fly to Quetta, where their arrival is rarely registered in airport logs.

While he was hospitalised, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go to bin Laden's hospital room.

A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorised sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta, the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.

In late July, Emirates customs agents arrested Franco-Algerian activist Djamel Beghal at the Dubai airport. In early August, French and American authorities were advised of the arrest. Interrogated by local authorities in Abu Dhabi, Beghal stated that he was called to Afghanistan in late 2000 by Abou Zoubeida, a military leader of bin Laden's organization, Al Qaeda. Beghal's mission: bomb the US embassy on Gabriel avenue, near the Place de la Concorde, upon his return to France.

According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan.

In August, at the US Embassy in Paris, an emergency meeting was called between the DGSE (French foreign intelligence service) and senior US intelligence officials. The Americans were extremely worried, and requested very specific information from the French about Algerian activists, without advising their counterparts about the reasons for their requests. To the question "what do you fear in the coming days?", the Americans kept a difficult-to-fathom silence.

Contacts between the CIA and bin Laden began in 1979 when, as a representative of his family's business, bin Laden began recruiting volunteers for the Afghan resistance against the Red Army. FBI investigators examining the embassy bombing sites in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam discovered that evidence led to military explosives from the US Army, and that these explosives had been delivered threee years earlier to Afghan Arabs, the infamous international volunteer brigades involved side by side with bin Laden during the Afghan war against the Red Army.

In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is then within the logic of "a certain American policy".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html

Copyright, Le Figaro, 2001. For fair use only.

What are your thoughts on this Wink
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:11 am

Unfortunately, that's some really grainy and shaky video, and the person who put this up, left it shaky, and then monetizes the video is a complete asshole. If they're looking for truth, and are going to demand money for the video they didn't even shoot, then they should have used a video editing program to center the building.
Here's what I think we have: At second 43 of the video, we have the full building. By second 45, the top of the building has begun to warp down, creating an arch shape instead of the straight across we saw at 43. 45 also shows us the beginning of the black dots appearing, with more dots appearing as time goes on. Because the camera pulls back, and becomes grainy, we do not have a good idea of how long dots continue to appear.
Here's a non-conspiracy view of what happened: The left of the building starts to come down, putting stress on the right of the building. The line of dots appear as a fissure occurs from the weight of the left pulling away from the right. As the fissure occurs, the windows give out, causing the smoke that has been building up from the fire inside to be released. This is a very amateur evaluation, but I don't see any flashes, so I think it would be hasty to conclude those black dots as detonated bombs.

Many things wrong with this news article. One, it never says anything about its sources that would allow it to be verified, and no other news source has been able to verify it. Two, the hospital has denied giving care to bin Laden source. Three, Dubai would be a horrible place for bin Laden to go for treatment: the place is full of mercenaries, and all of them would love getting there hands on the 7 million American dollars bounty he had at the time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm

Ever heard of the bush binladen connection?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:19 am

Bush's family is wealthy in large part due to oil revenue. The bin Laden family is tied to the Bush family through oil trade. However, Osama bin Laden has been disowned by the rest of the family. The only possible way I can see Bush's ties to the bin Laden family relevant is if the rest of the bin Laden family asked Bush to kill Osama in order for the bin Laden family to have a good name in the west; otherwise, it seems absurd to think that the bin Laden family would put up with George W. Bush scapegoating Osama.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:11 am

A powerful government could not possibly get away with something 19 Arabs led by a man in a cave are capable of.

Well placed, accurately timed, 4500 degree thermite reactions cannot demolish a building because they can't melt all the steel columns at the same time ... but scattered 1200 degree office fires can.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:23 am

Now you're just being cynical. Anyway, if this is the line of argument you wish to continue to use, then I won't bother debating anymore. I've stated the kind of evidence I'm looking for, and, after this, I simply won't respond to anything that sounds like this.

1) The government could pull off the President ordering 19 hijackers to suicide into various buildings; the government could not pull off the large-scale conspiracy that is attributed to them. Essentially, the larger a group, the less likely a secret will be kept, and the scale that the 9/11 truthers talk about would collapse almost immediately.

2) You've obviously not listened at all. I'm assuming it's possible that thermite detonation could melt steel support beams; however, we don't need to melt the steel to bring down the tower. The towers were scheduled to have their fire insulation redone because it was old, so the building was fairly vulnerable to fire at the time. Then, all we needed was enough heat to weaken the tower, and the pressure from the top of the building would cause the support beams to bend until they break under the weight. This probably explains why the south tower fell first: it had the most weight above it.


But let me be a bit cynical back — hopefully I can throw a straw man or two in to show you how annoying it is:
1) Why would the government shoot down their own cruise missile/fighter jet? The planes that were "hijacked" were supposedly intercepted, and then replaced by government planes/missiles. Given this, what use would there be in shooting the replacement flight 93?
2) Why replace the planes with something else? The government seizes the planes, then replaces them with expensive alternatives? Why wouldn't they just use the actual planes while they're at it?
3) Why shoot a missile at the tower as they crash into it? There were apparently tons of thermite in the building — enough to bring it down — so shooting a missile would seem like a huge waist. Why would they even bring missiles along? It would just be a money waster...
4) Why is Dylan Avery still alive?
5) Why is every claim made by truthers demonstrable wrong?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:03 am

Shynaku

Point number one. Possible but not impossible. Its just as easy for the government to get away with a large conspiracy liek that. Thousands of military men keep secrets about our government why is it so hard to fathom an operation like this coulnt be kept secret.

Point two. heres a few points from a bbc article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'
By Mike Rudin
BBC, Conspiracy Files




One of the twin towers collapses
The final mystery of 9/11 will soon be solved, according to US experts investigating the collapse of the third tower at the World Trade Center.

The 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers.

Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse.

Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, based near Washington DC, is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse.

That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.
See World Trade Center 7's location and structure

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two's "The Conspiracy Files":

"Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings."

'Smoking gun'

However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.


FIND OUT MORE...
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower is on BBC Two on Sunday 6 July at 2100 BST
Visit The Conspiracy Files website


Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7
Timeline: WTC 7
The BBC and the 'missing' tape
The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives.

"Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.

"Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance", says Gage, "they don't go straight down through themselves."

Conspiracy theories

There are a number of facts that have encouraged conspiracy theories about Tower Seven.

•Although its collapse potentially made architectural history, all of the thousands of tonnes of steel from the skyscraper were taken away to be melted down.
•The third tower was occupied by the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management, which would co-ordinate any response to a disaster or a terrorist attack.
•The destruction of the third tower was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The first official inquiry into Tower Seven by the Federal Emergency Management Agency was unable to be definitive about what caused its collapse.
•In May 2002 FEMA concluded that the building collapsed because intense fires had burned for hours, fed by thousands of gallons of diesel stored in the building. But it said this had "only a low probability of occurrence" and more work was needed.
But now nearly seven years after 9/11 the definitive official explanation of what happened to Tower Seven is finally about to be published in America.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has spent more than two years investigating Tower Seven but lead investigator Dr Shyam Sunder rejects criticism that it has been slow.


AdvertisementThe collapse of Tower 7
"We've been at this for a little over two years and doing a two or two and a half year investigation is not at all unusual. That's the same kind of time frame that takes place when we do aeroplane crash investigations, it takes a few years."

With no steel from Tower 7 to study, investigators have instead made four extremely complex computer models worked out to the finest detail. They're confident their approach can now provide the answers. Dr Sunder says the investigation is moving as fast as possible.

"It's a very complex problem. It requires a level of fidelity in the modelling and rigour in the analysis that has never been done before."

Other skyscrapers haven't fully collapsed before because of fire. But NIST argues that what happened on 9/11 was unique.

Steel structure weakened

It says Tower Seven had an unusual design, built over an electricity substation and a subway; there were many fires that burnt for hours; and crucially, fire fighters could not fight the fires in Tower 7, because they didn't have enough water and focused on saving lives.

Investigators have focused on the east side where the long floor spans were under most stress.

They think fires burnt long enough to weaken and break many of the connections that held the steel structure together.

Most susceptible were the thinner floor beams which required less fireproofing, and the connections between the beams and the columns. As they heated up the connections failed and the beams sagged and failed, investigators say.

The collapse of the first of the Twin Towers does not seem to have caused any serious damage to Tower Seven, but the second collapse of the 1,368ft (417m) North Tower threw debris at Tower Seven, just 350ft (106m) away.
Tower Seven came down at 5.21pm. Until now most of the photographs have been of the three sides of the building that did not show much obvious physical damage. Now new photos of the south side of the building, which crucially faced the North Tower, show that whole side damaged and engulfed in smoke.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:36 pm

Because we're talking about tens of thousands of both military and commercially employed persons from various backgrounds and training. By the time you're in the military to the point where you get to see top secret stuff, you've gone through a rigorous process of being conditioned to obey the executive branch — and even then we still have leaks. But the amount of people that seem to be involved in non-military sectors — the airports that took in the intercepted airplanes, for one — would be almost impossible to co-ordinate; just yesterday the airline lost my father's luggage, and you expect these people to be hiding one of the biggest conspiracies in the world secret?

I don't understand why you pointed to that article. The article itself is pretty neutral — group A says..., while group B says... — and it really seems like the article just says, do you believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or a collection of "architects, engineers and scientists" grouped behind Richard Gage?

Also, I've answered all of your questions, and you've answered none of mine; how about treating me equally here (I'll even let you ignore question 5 if you want)?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:08 pm

I personally beleive its all apart of a bigger agenda. 9/11 happened so they can pass the patriot act, and also so we could goto war with iraq and afghanistan. There was no reason to be in iraq. Where are all those WMD's? It was all a lie just to get us in iraq. Iran actually has WMD's but are were going to war with them? Not yet, but who knows they do have oil so we might just goto war with them next.

Bottom line i think anyone who trusts their government fully is naive and slightly brainwashed. We are controlled by the Federal Reserve and all the elite like the rothchilds and kennedy's and other ppl like the bilderberg group and such. I might seem like a crazy person but its hard for me to look at stuff like water flouridation, aspartame, chemtrails, increasing number of laws being passed for martial law and North American Union.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Shynaku
Admin
avatar

Posts : 86
Join date : 2010-05-27

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:41 pm

Okay... but you still haven't answered any of my questions; instead, you've raised new issues (water fluoridation, aspartame) and grouped them all into a mass conspiracy against the people. I'm just going to say it point blank: I am no longer engaging in discourse with you on this matter until you have given some attempt at the questions I've raised. Unless you've done that, I don't feel we're actually engaging in dialogue; you seem unwilling/incapable of changing your mind on the subject, and only want a platform to voice your ideas.

Or how about this, either take a step back and not criticize things relating to the government just because they're part of the government, or move to the middle of the forest where no-one has the ability to control you. I've said it before and I'll say it again: don't trust the government on face-value, but don't distrust something purely because it's been said by the government. If you don't trust the government at all, only rely on third-party sources; but check the credibility of the third-party sources before you start believing every word they say — especially if their main credit comes from being against the norm.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mbacolas

avatar

Posts : 135
Join date : 2010-05-25

PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:42 pm

Honestly I can't answer your questiions. Its just hard for me after all I've seen and heard (videos, eye witness accounts of information contradicting the official 911 report) and the explanation of the pentagon and building 7. Its just too much for me. I try to use logic and that's the only tool I need. Sorry but I can't answer your questions because I am not that well educated nor am I a professional. But I can attempt to find the answer online and report back when I have them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: 9/11: an inside job?   

Back to top Go down
 
9/11: an inside job?
Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Temps inside cold frame/hoop tunnel
» starting Peas inside?
» Using compost inside
» Eggs inside tomato, what are they?
» Bring Tomato inside?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Honorable Warriors :: Conspiracies-
Jump to: