ae911truth.org

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Interesting. You can click on the numbers of engineers and architects to read about who they are.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

hodge

thanks for sharing

Fire has never — prior to or after 9/11 — caused any steel frame building to collapse.

damn those pesky terrorists, must have invented some new kind of fire

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Molten Steel. Also impossible, but present. Steel, not aluminum.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-56.php

Click through to the next few slides.

Very strange indeed.

hodge

watching a really good video
"how the towers fell" by Richard Gage, Architect

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

RolandTD20Kdrummer

I posted this pic ages ago. One good point the guy makes, is that Oxy Acetylene cutting torches do not produce that amount of slag around the cut area.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-127.php

edit: another interesting point he makes is that the elevators were being worked on for 9 months prior to 9/11, and workers could crawl around between the floors and have access to all the building supports without anybody seeing them.

chopitdown

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I posted this pic ages ago. One good point the guy makes, is that Oxy Acetylene cutting torches do not produce that amount of slag around the cut area.

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-127.php

edit: another interesting point he makes is that the elevators were being worked on for 9 months prior to 9/11, and workers could crawl around between the floors and have access to all the building supports without anybody seeing them.

crawling around b/t floors w/o being seen for 9 mos? The thing that gets me is that no one has actually claimed to have done this. People have claimed to fly the planes into buildings. If this is some huge conspiracy how come OBL or another terrorist group hasn't come forward and said, in our plan we also had help from the US govt or we had people working in the buildings and we placed explosives. You can't tell me that if you had all of those workers in all of the wtc buildings that not one of them wouldn't let something slip or brag about what they did.

chopitdown

a nice summary
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/4
To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.

harrymanback

here is a more appropriate link for the day: http://mygooddeed.org/

spiral out

I found this interesting. And it's good to see i'm not the only one who thinks they should be looking at other possibilties for the collapse of the buildings.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.


Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, "Questions on the WTC Investigations" at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

stu gee

chopitdown wrote:

If this is some huge conspiracy how come OBL or another terrorist group hasn't come forward and said, in our plan we also had help from the US govt or we had people working in the buildings and we placed explosives. You can't tell me that if you had all of those workers in all of the wtc buildings that not one of them wouldn't let something slip or brag about what they did.

Agreed. People promoting these conspiracy theories dont really have a decent answer for these kinds of questions in my opinion.

Anon

stu gee wrote:

Agreed. People promoting these conspiracy theories dont really have a decent answer for these kinds of questions in my opinion.

Do you have a decent answer for why Bush and Cheney were not placed under oath and their testimony was not recorded during the 9/11 Commission. Why only a single note taker was permitted?

Is it because, by giving testimony that is unrecorded and unsworn, Cheney and Bush avoid the kind of legal liability—either to impeachment or criminal prosecution, that others might face? Is it because they had something to hide? Of course it is.

Do you not think that the reason so many of these 'conspirary theories' are floating around is because Americans and the rest of the world have been lied to from day one about the events leading up to 9/11. Not everyone believes that the Bush Administration were behind 9/11, but a lot believe that the government has and is still hiding critical information about so many things that are left unanswered. When the people that are placed in power to protect you don't do their job, hide things from you, then lie about it, it's the nature of the beast that you search for answers elsewhere. Especially when it involves your loved ones and families.

facepollution

For me, the most obvious thing amongst all the 9/11 evidence, is the collapsing of WTC7, check this link out and the few slides after it: http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-11.php there is no doubt that that building was taken down by controlled demolition. And if that was planned, then so was the rest of it.

stu gee

I promised myself id not post in another conspiracy thread and i wish i hadnt posted that. Was ready to reply to PJ gurl's post there but id just be posting the same opinions i have many times so im not going to bother. Nothing that has been suggested by the conspiracy theorists makes me think any differently. It would be far easier for people to create paranoia through conspiracy than it would be for people to get away with planning 9/11 in my opinion. Face Polluction has just referred to a subject that was discussed at great length in another thread a while ago, and has conveniently left out the arguments and answers that people who disagreed with his theory provided.

I think that some of the people who post on here about supposed conspiracies come across as incredibly arrogant in the way they struggle to deal with people who hold a different opinion from them. I dont profess to know everything about what happened on 9/11, and dont always have the decent answers that pj Gurl is looking for, but dont take that as an invitation to present your answers as the truth.

Bye now.

chopitdown

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Do you have a decent answer for why Bush and Cheney were not placed under oath and their testimony was not recorded during the 9/11 Commission. Why only a single note taker was permitted?

Is it because, by giving testimony that is unrecorded and unsworn, Cheney and Bush avoid the kind of legal liability—either to impeachment or criminal prosecution, that others might face? Is it because they had something to hide? Of course it is.

Do you not think that the reason so many of these 'conspirary theories' are floating around is because Americans and the rest of the world have been lied to from day one about the events leading up to 9/11. Not everyone believes that the Bush Administration were behind 9/11, but a lot believe that the government has and is still hiding critical information about so many things that are left unanswered. When the people that are placed in power to protect you don't do their job, hide things from you, then lie about it, it's the nature of the beast that you search for answers elsewhere. Especially when it involves your loved ones and families.

no one is saying the government is not hiding anything. But there is a huge difference b/t the gov't wanting to save face (which let's face it...we all know there were breakdowns that day which is the area in which most people want answers) and the govt actually conspiring to do this by blowing up buildings and crashing jets. People want answers to important questions, but going about it by such extreme measures doesnt do anything for those questions. Would you give the time of day to someone who was that whacked out in their views? no, you'd write them off as crazy (and most likely rightfully so).

jeffbr

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Do you have a decent answer for why Bush and Cheney were not placed under oath and their testimony was not recorded during the 9/11 Commission. Why only a single note taker was permitted?

Is it because, by giving testimony that is unrecorded and unsworn, Cheney and Bush avoid the kind of legal liability—either to impeachment or criminal prosecution, that others might face? Is it because they had something to hide? Of course it is.

Jesus, this one is stupid. There is simply no precedent for congress or a commission to put a sitting president under oath in a public forum. The fact that they declined says nothing about anything. It simply isn't done.

I'm not posting this in defense of Bush/Cheney. I'm posting this in defense of common sense. It is a huge chasm you've leapt across to think that because they followed 200+ years of precedence they must be guilty of an insider job here.

Like Stu Gee, I try not to get sucked into these fucked up conspiracy threads. Read Chopitdown's post with the link to the rollingstone.com article. There's truth to be found there - Hannity's followers and the 9/11 truthers exhibit the same blind passion for their positions.

Anon

stu gee wrote:

I promised myself id not post in another conspiracy thread and i wish i hadnt posted that. Was ready to reply to PJ gurl's post there but id just be posting the same opinions i have many times so im not going to bother.
I think that some of the people who post on here about supposed conspiracies come across as incredibly arrogant in the way they struggle to deal with people who hold a different opinion from them. I dont profess to know everything about what happened on 9/11, and dont always have the decent answers that pj Gurl is looking for, but dont take that as an invitation to present your answers as the truth.

Bye now.

See i agree with you there about some people struggling to deal with people who hold a different opinion from them. I guess the point i was trying to make was this

'Not everyone believes that the Bush Administration were behind 9/11, but a lot believe that the government has and is still hiding critical information about so many things that are left unanswered. When the people that are placed in power to protect you don't do their job, hide things from you, then lie about it, it's the nature of the beast that you search for answers elsewhere. Especially when it involves your loved ones and families.'

That doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist, because i'm not, but it does leave me wondering why we were lied to, and what the hell they are going to do to fix whatever mistakes they made that they will not own up to, so that we can be better prepared in the future and safer, if it ever happens again.

Anon

jeffbr wrote:

Jesus, this one is stupid. There is simply no precedent for congress or a commission to put a sitting president under oath in a public forum. The fact that they declined says nothing about anything. It simply isn't done.

I'm not posting this in defense of Bush/Cheney. I'm posting this in defense of common sense. It is a huge chasm you've leapt across to think that because they followed 200+ years of precedence they must be guilty of an insider job here.

Like Stu Gee, I try not to get sucked into these fucked up conspiracy threads. Read Chopitdown's post with the link to the rollingstone.com article. There's truth to be found there - Hannity's followers and the 9/11 truthers exhibit the same blind passion for their positions.

Thanks for calling me stupid. I hope you feel better now. I obviously did not make my point clear enough. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am not convinced that the government was responsible for anything other than telling lies about the events prior to 9/11 (and i'm talking about the denial of the warnings that an attack was imminent) and the fact they are still lying about it today.

I never said or accused them of an inside job. Not once.

Anon

chopitdown wrote:

no one is saying the government is not hiding anything. But there is a huge difference b/t the gov't wanting to save face (which let's face it...we all know there were breakdowns that day which is the area in which most people want answers)

Thats what i was trying to say. I usually post in the musicians and gear thread because i'd much rather play guitar than discuss politics. Clearly i am not as good at explaining myself as the people that post in here all the time.

Thanks for reply anyway.

spiral out

Good questions i think.

"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"

stu gee

spiral out wrote:

Good questions i think.

Go back and find the huge thread dedicated to this subject for some possible answers.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

chopitdown wrote:

crawling around b/t floors w/o being seen for 9 mos? The thing that gets me is that no one has actually claimed to have done this. People have claimed to fly the planes into buildings. If this is some huge conspiracy how come OBL or another terrorist group hasn't come forward and said, in our plan we also had help from the US govt or we had people working in the buildings and we placed explosives. You can't tell me that if you had all of those workers in all of the wtc buildings that not one of them wouldn't let something slip or brag about what they did.

Question how many people do you think it would take?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

chopitdown wrote:

a nice summary
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/4
To me, the 9/11 Truth movement is, itself, a classic example of the pathology of George Bush's America. Bush has presided over a country that has become hopelessly divided into insoluble, paranoid tribes, one of which happens to be Bush's own government. All of these tribes have things in common; they're insular movements that construct their own reality by cherry-picking the evidence they like from the vast information marketplace, violently disbelieve in the humanity of those outside their ranks, and lavishly praise their own movement mediocrities as great thinkers and achievers. There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

There's not a whole lot of difference, psychologically, between Sean Hannity's followers believing liberals to be the same as terrorists, and 9/11 Truthers believing even the lowest soldier or rank-and-file FAA or NORAD official to be a cold-blooded mass murderer. In both cases you have to be far gone enough into your private world of silly tribal bullshit that the concept of "your fellow citizen" has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever. It may be that America has become too big and complicated for most people to deal with being part of. People are longing for a smaller, stupider reality. Some, like Bush, sell a prepackaged version. Others just make theirs up out of thin air. God help us.

I think you should look at the URL I posted and Richard Gage's analysis (post #4 url) before commenting.

You may wish to let it load in the background and skip ahead and watch the last hour.

Half of New Yorkers believe there was a conspiracy.

Traces of thermite were found. Molten steel was also found.

Apparently dust collected from a womans balcony across the way from the WTC contained precipitated drops (round balls) of vaporized steel.

All interesting.

stu gee

I find it interesting how some conspiracy theorists choose to believe some government produced figures that support their arguments, and then discount others that go against or disprove them. How do you choose what to believe, or choose what and what isnt a conspiracy?

chopitdown

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Question how many people do you think it would take?

to rig 3 skyscrapers for complete demolition? I have no idea. But that dodges the question of how they got away with it w/o ANYONE seeing it or anyone saying anything. People have such big mouths and they brag about everything. I still say it's surprising that no one has taken responsibility for this. Esp in wake of the security upgrades that occurred after the bombing in the early 90's. You can't tell me that if someone got through all the security and were able to bring controlled demolition devices into not 1 or 2 but 3 world trade center buildings they wouldn't be bragging about it. Terrorists claim repsonsibility for anything they can and you would think that if they could claim pulling THAT off would def strengthen their cause b/c it could show that they really could get into anywhere. They could get to planes, they could get into 3 buildings that have state of the art security and have already experienced bombings.

facepollution

stu gee wrote:

Face Polluction has just referred to a subject that was discussed at great length in another thread a while ago, and has conveniently left out the arguments and answers that people who disagreed with his theory provided.

Hey, the point I'm making was not a completely detailed analysis of the events that day, but a common sense over view of something that just doesn't add up. Another example would be the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. We can debate what actually happened all day long, but it's quicker to look at what quite blatantly didn't happen, for example if a plane is vaporized upon crashing, the chances of ALL the people on board being identified by DNA is quite logically not possible. And the problem is, if one part of the puzzle doesn't fit exactly, then you have to presume the rest of it is probably wrong too.

stu gee wrote:

I think that some of the people who post on here about supposed conspiracies come across as incredibly arrogant in the way they struggle to deal with people who hold a different opinion from them. I dont profess to know everything about what happened on 9/11, and dont always have the decent answers that pj Gurl is looking for, but dont take that as an invitation to present your answers as the truth.

Bye now.

See I read stuff like this all the time. It should go without saying, that every opinion anyone on here has, is THEIR opinion. Just because I say I'm adamant that the government isn't being honest, doesn't mean it's fact - that is surely obvious?

I don't profess to know what happened that day, I'm just going on the factual stuff. The fact that hundreds of architects and structual engineers are saying something doesn't add up, is far more convincing than some average Joe coming up with a theory.

facepollution

chopitdown wrote:

to rig 3 skyscrapers for complete demolition? I have no idea. But that dodges the question of how they got away with it w/o ANYONE seeing it or anyone saying anything. People have such big mouths and they brag about everything. I still say it's surprising that no one has taken responsibility for this. Esp in wake of the security upgrades that occurred after the bombing in the early 90's. You can't tell me that if someone got through all the security and were able to bring controlled demolition devices into not 1 or 2 but 3 world trade center buildings they wouldn't be bragging about it. Terrorists claim repsonsibility for anything they can and you would think that if they could claim pulling THAT off would def strengthen their cause b/c it could show that they really could get into anywhere. They could get to planes, they could get into 3 buildings that have state of the art security and have already experienced bombings.

I heard that the buildings were evacuated on a number of occasions in the weeks leading up to 9/11. Plus it wouldn't be hard for engineers to go in saying they were doing structual work. Or for them to be doing work over night.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

chopitdown wrote:

to rig 3 skyscrapers for complete demolition? I have no idea. But that dodges the question of how they got away with it w/o ANYONE seeing it or anyone saying anything. People have such big mouths and they brag about everything. I still say it's surprising that no one has taken responsibility for this. Esp in wake of the security upgrades that occurred after the bombing in the early 90's. You can't tell me that if someone got through all the security and were able to bring controlled demolition devices into not 1 or 2 but 3 world trade center buildings they wouldn't be bragging about it. Terrorists claim repsonsibility for anything they can and you would think that if they could claim pulling THAT off would def strengthen their cause b/c it could show that they really could get into anywhere. They could get to planes, they could get into 3 buildings that have state of the art security and have already experienced bombings.

Do you think 9 months would be long enough? That is how long people were coming and going in and out of the elevator shafts upgrading the elevators. I think a very small team (10 or less) could have enough time. What would security need to know other than the elevators are shut down and being worked on?

You have to get your head around the fact that some people wanted this to happen very badly, and for a specific reason. They also don't necessarily have to be alive anymore either.

stu gee

facepollution wrote:

Hey, the point I'm making was not a completely detailed analysis of the events that day, but a common sense over view of something that just doesn't add up. Another example would be the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. We can debate what actually happened all day long, but it's quicker to look at what quite blatantly didn't happen, for example if a plane is vaporized upon crashing, the chances of ALL the people on board being identified by DNA is quite logically not possible. And the problem is, if one part of the puzzle doesn't fit exactly, then you have to presume the rest of it is probably wrong too.




See I read stuff like this all the time. It should go without saying, that every opinion anyone on here has, is THEIR opinion. Just because I say I'm adamant that the government isn't being honest, doesn't mean it's fact - that is surely obvious?

I don't profess to know what happened that day, I'm just going on the factual stuff. The fact that hundreds of architects and structual engineers are saying something doesn't add up, is far more convincing than some average Joe coming up with a theory.

The second part of my post wasnt directed exclusively at you.

There have been architects and structural engineers who have argued against the ones who you have chosen to believe, how have you chosen who is right?

chopitdown

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Do you think 9 months would be long enough? That is how long people were coming and going in and out of the elevator shafts upgrading the elevators. I think a very small team (10 or less) could have enough time. What would security need to know other than the elevators are shut down and being worked on?

You have to get your head around the fact that some people wanted this to happen very badly.

people did want it to happen very badly, we just disagree on certain people who wanted it to happen. My guess is that extreme arrogance got the best of the administration during this time (and prob still is running rampant). No one had done what happened. There is a big difference b/t being too arrogant to act (the "these terrorists cant really pull this off b/c we're america" philosophy) and pulling the strings behind the scenes. Ignorance, arrogance are not the same as instigation. If it's brought to light not by speculation, but by fact, that they allowed and helped orchestrate this to happen I'll be right there with you calling for their resignation and their heads.

spiral out

stu gee wrote:

Go back and find the huge thread dedicated to this subject for some possible answers.

These questions come from the Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division.

JamMastaE

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I think you should look at the URL I posted and Richard Gage's analysis (post #4 url) before commenting.

You may wish to let it load in the background and skip ahead and watch the last hour.

Half of New Yorkers believe there was a conspiracy.

Traces of thermite were found. Molten steel was also found.

Apparently dust collected from a womans balcony across the way from the WTC contained precipitated drops (round balls) of vaporized steel.

All interesting.

there you go posting facts and evidence again!! when will you learn?

it's not an inside job unless the mass media or popular mechanics says it is.

so shut up and go back to sleep like the rest of the sheep around here.