9/11 Mysteries

bootlegger10

We need names and not theories. On a sidenote, youtube is funny. It is like the dungeons and dragons for the politico geeks.

John Budge

What happened on 9/2?

jlew24asu

bootlegger10 wrote:

On a sidenote, youtube is funny. It is like the dungeons and dragons for the politico geeks.

haha nice!!!!

jlew24asu

even flow? wrote:

The fact that it was ready to go. And the others just may have been to. I know in some world they can run through the building in a time of crisis and plant the explosives where they need to be in hours. But in the real world.....

you are the hardest person to understand on this board. is english not your first language ?

even flow?

jlew24asu wrote:

you are the hardest person to understand on this board. is english not your first language ?

What?

MakingWaves

MakingWaves wrote:

7 was not demolished but you ask a good question.
When did they rig up the building?
How come no one saw them doing this?
How were they able to get away with rigging the building when I am sure it would have taken weeks?
How did they get behind the walls to the structural support without anyone working in the building seeing them do this?

I need someone to answer my questions with FACTS not theories you saw on youtube.

jlew24asu

even flow? wrote:

The fact that it was ready to go. And the others just may have been to. I know in some world they can run through the building in a time of crisis and plant the explosives where they need to be in hours. But in the real world.....

this makes no fucking sense. please try again.

MakingWaves

jlew24asu wrote:

this makes no fucking sense. please try again.

He is just saying it would have been impossible for them to go into WTC7 on 9/11 and plant explosives to bring it down.

CorporateWhore

Anybody watch that show Traveler on ABC? It has a conspiracy theory flavor to it, just a different building is blown up.

Still, we need more information from better sources to conclude that these buildings were demolished by the U.S. govt.

CorporateWhore

Science:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

MakingWaves

CorporateWhore wrote:

Science:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I have posted this on here plenty of times but because the Senior Editor of Popular Mechanics or something like that is someones 3rd cousin in the Bush Administration he is also part of the conspiracy.

They choose to ignore the information in the article is based on scientific fact.

CorporateWhore

MakingWaves wrote:

I have posted this on here plenty of times but because the Senior Editor of Popular Mechanics or something like that is someones 3rd cousin in the Bush Administration he is also part of the conspiracy.

They choose to ignore the information in the article is based on scientific fact.

hahaha

Here's some info on building 7

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

CorporateWhore

The funny thing is that these people can't offer any scientific proof to discredit Popular Mechanics or any of the science in their article.

When they can't, they then proceed to turn toward conspiracy theories about who got the terrorists to do it. Ignoring anything that doesn't fit with an Anti-Bush, Anti-U.S. Government lean, they assess the information and mold it to fit their biases.

This is pseudo-scientific babbling by nincompoops that don't know anything about engineering, detonation, the U.S. government, or Islamic extremism.

MakingWaves

CorporateWhore wrote:

hahaha

Here's some info on building 7

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

They will say, "How convenient that they needed more time after people started questioning how it collapsed."
Again, this is another hollow arguement. The simple fact is it just took more time to figure out what happened and these facts are now supported by scientific evidence.

CorporateWhore

MakingWaves wrote:

They will say, "How convenient that they needed more time after people started questioning how it collapsed."
Again, this is another hollow arguement. The simple fact is it just took more time to figure out what happened and these facts are now supported by scientific evidence.

What it comes down to is this:

Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists.

They don't have jobs so it's not like this is difficult for them.

even flow?

CorporateWhore wrote:

What it comes down to is this:

Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists.

They don't have jobs so it's not like this is difficult for them.

Some don't subscibe to your government as you do.

http://www.reopen911.org/

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

What it comes down to is this:

Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists.

They don't have jobs so it's not like this is difficult for them.

This is why it's so pointless to try to discuss these things here. Many people on this board have given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinions and research but no matter how many times these things are posted, hard headed people like yourself will just pretend like these things have never been posted and continue to spout off bullshit claims like:

"Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists."

That's why I don't want to even bother with it anymore...you're just going to ignore it all anyway no matter what is posted. It's pointless to keep trying.

El_Kabong

MakingWaves wrote:

7 was not demolished but you ask a good question.
When did they rig up the building?
How come no one saw them doing this?
How were they able to get away with rigging the building when I am sure it would have taken weeks?
How did they get behind the walls to the structural support without anyone working in the building seeing them do this?

MakingWaves wrote:

I need someone to answer my questions with FACTS not theories you saw on youtube.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=211248

El_Kabong

CorporateWhore wrote:

hahaha

Here's some info on building 7

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

i thought the head nist investigator said he had "no idea" what happened to building 7?????

MakingWaves

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This is why it's so pointless to try to discuss these things here. Many people on this board have given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinions and research but no matter how many times these things are posted, hard headed people like yourself will just pretend like these things have never been posted and continue to spout off bullshit claims like:

"Scientist affirms that 9/11 happened the way everyone saw it happen.

Conspiracy theorists toss out old claims and invent new ones not yet addressed by scientists."

That's why I don't want to even bother with it anymore...you're just going to ignore it all anyway no matter what is posted. It's pointless to keep trying.

You are correct that it is pointless to discuss on here. Many people on this board have also given you plenty of evidence and brought up many good points, along with expert opinion...so on and so on. And hard headed people like you also pretend these things have never been posted spout off bullshit claims.

That is why I also don't bother anymore. I don't know why i jumped back into this one.