9/11 truthers?!!?!?!?

[NickDagger]

any of you faggots left out there?

lets fight.

[Cheapboarder]

any of you faggots left out there?

lets fight.

Rather not fight about stuff I don't know about.

[you took to much]

what do you beleive about the subject ND?

[marty.]

Had to change my whole morning walk routine last month, and take the long way to the store I go to buy a bagel every morning, just to avoid them. They were out in full force for the weeks before the anniversary, handing out pamphlets and being loud and other nonsense.

[NickDagger]

what do you beleive about the subject ND?

I don't believe it was a conspiracy perpetrated by our government, or that the buildings were blown up.

[verbal ham]

ey dumbass 9/11 was an inside job 100% ... when the fuck have you seen steel colum buildigns go down at freefall speed due to "jet engine fuel" blowin up  , also wat about wtc7 ? this tall ass building also went down at freefall speed due to "fire" and it wasnt even hit by any planes? ..im not sayin the goverment planned all this is out but they sure as hell arent trying to investigate anything , the 9/11 commision report is a joke and the whole incident is just like the hitler's reichstag fire , a FALSE FLAG ATTACK..

[you took to much]

oh... well... shit..

theres so many things that are against common sense and reality that happened in the whole "offical" story, i'm not saying that it was some huge conspiricy but the story was definitly wrong and it didnt happen the way it supposedly did.

fuck it, nevermind. i dont feel like getting into this, you win dagger.

[HoovUCDC]

a few of my friends just recently watched Loose Change and they talk about it so damn much.  it's quite annoying.

[Wizard Fuck]

ey dumbass 9/11 was an inside job 100% ... when the fuck have you seen steel colum buildigns go down at freefall speed due to "jet engine fuel" blowin up  , also wat about wtc7 ? this tall ass building also went down at freefall speed due to "fire" and it wasnt even hit by any planes? ..im not sayin the goverment planned all this is out but they sure as hell arent trying to investigate anything , the 9/11 commision report is a joke and the whole incident is just like the hitler's reichstag fire , a FALSE FLAG ATTACK..

Hey "dumbass", if you actually looked stuff up, you would realize that with the combination of fuel, papers, rugs and computers the temperatures could have melted the steel.

[you took to much]

thats only the floors where the plane had hit, where jet fuel would have been burning. what about the 70 so floors below that weren't damaged at all? and how come they fell at free-fall speed when they shouldve been hitting those floors on the way down? doesnt make sense.

[NickDagger]

ey dumbass 9/11 was an inside job 100% ... when the fuck have you seen steel colum buildigns go down at freefall speed due to "jet engine fuel" blowin up  , also wat about wtc7 ? this tall ass building also went down at freefall speed due to "fire" and it wasnt even hit by any planes? ..im not sayin the goverment planned all this is out but they sure as hell arent trying to investigate anything , the 9/11 commision report is a joke and the whole incident is just like the hitler's reichstag fire , a FALSE FLAG ATTACK..

It wasn't JUST the heat.

That's what you faggots don't get it.

It was the IMPACT of two giant airplanes crashing into and damaging the steel, knocking out many of the core coloumns, THEN the combination of the heat and many other factors brought it down.



If you can beat this model, or explain how it's wrong other than repeating

"JET FUEL DOSENT DO THAT!! IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMO!!!"

Please, feel free.

[Wizard Fuck]

thats only the floors where the plane had hit, where jet fuel would have been burning. what about the 70 so floors below that weren't damaged at all? and how come they fell at free-fall speed when they shouldve been hitting those floors on the way down? doesnt make sense.

Did it do that? I thought the floors collapsing on them just caused a reaction of all the floors coming down.

Maybe the explosion had some impact as well?

[All Hail Wu Welsh]

i got your back dagger, its time these fools who think theyre enlightened cause they watched loose change and zeigest got a wake up call

[verbal ham]

okay fags if that was the case you would see steal collums in the rubble , in pictures you see that the whole fucking building was reduced to nothing and that as cause of a  burning rugs and papers?  also dont you see in footage after the crash the black smoke indicating cooling temperatures , and how convenient  you guys ignore WTC7? <br> <img src="http://www.bollyn.com/public/ParticlesRisingFromWTCrubble.jpg"> where are the steel columns? oh yea and that the wreck in that photo was due to fire and melting steel columns ,


another thing steel melts at 1370 degrees.

Expand Quote

thats only the floors where the plane had hit, where jet fuel would have been burning. what about the 70 so floors below that weren't damaged at all? and how come they fell at free-fall speed when they shouldve been hitting those floors on the way down? doesnt make sense.

[close]

Did it do that? I thought the floors collapsing on them just caused a reaction of all the floors coming down.

Maybe the explosion had some impact as well?

OKAY , maybe that can explain the floors coming down but what about the steel columms?

[verbal ham]

i got your back dagger, its time these fools who think theyre enlightened cause they watched loose change and zeigest got a wake up call

get the fuck out your not even explaining your stand

[kilgore.]

this argument has been stale since 02.

[verbal ham]

you guys really think a building would go down like that cause of fire? straight up ignorant

[sebastian toombs]

i always like how no one considers this:   perhaps the buildings werent designed or built as well as everyone thought they were?

[Wizard Fuck]

Expand Quote

[close]

THERE THEY ARE

[sweets]

[verbal ham]

i always like how no one considers this:   perhaps the buildings werent designed or built as well as everyone thought they were?

the buildings were designed to withstand airplane crashes

[Wizard Fuck]

Expand Quote

The way secrets are kept is compartmentalized and pyramidal. The NYPD, TV networks, FEMA, the military, etc. as a whole needn't be "in on it" to keep a lid on things. The way chain-of-command works, even on a covert operation, is that information is disseminated on a need-to-know basis, with the official story and explanation being all that most need to know (evidently it's all you & Gipper feel the need to know).

[close]

First you have a problem if you want to make a convincing argument that the world trade center was demolitished, as setting up such a procedure would take months and you have not a single witness, picture, or security video of anyone settting up what would surely be one of the largest demolitions in history and anyone that knows how demolations work would know that there would be wires and cables and dynamite EVERYWHERE, to perform a successful collapse of such a huge building. And again you have the problem of why the government would risk flying planes into the buildings(they could have very easily missed...then it would have been pretty awkward if the building were to blow up, like in comedy movies where the car explodes for no reason), a simple bombing scenario would however make much more since for the government to frame as the building site had already been bombed previously-so if they did intend to blow it up it makes no sense what so fucking ever that they would bring in giant airplanes to the mix, again risking their plan coming uncovered, as-if the passengers on flight United 93 showed, it was very possible.

A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day. Larger or more complex structures can take up to three months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

Expand Quote

—NORAD stand-down, with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying that Cheney ordered a DC-bound plane to be left alone¹

[close]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Intercepts Not Routine
Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

Expand Quote

—near free-fall collapse of 1, 2 & 7, the latter in the classic style of a controlled demolition²

[close]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

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."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

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.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

[kilgore.]

<a href="http://tinypic.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i35.tinypic.com/2u9mr1z.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

[Wizard Fuck]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

[oldcasual]

no one's ever going to know what happend, everyone's going to have different opinions on it, believe what you wanna believe and leave it at that, that's all i have to say.

[verbal ham]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

[close]

THERE THEY ARE

[close]

yes they do , but then  why did the buildings come down hours later when the fire was already cooling?
<br><img src="http://911review.org/_webimages/000.JPG"><br>
BLACK SMOKE = COOLING TEMPERATURES..

<br><img src="http://www.investigate911.com/911moltensteel222222.JPG"><br>MOLTEN STEEL = EVIDENCE OF THERMITE/ demolition

[sebastian toombs]

Expand Quote

i always like how no one considers this:   perhaps the buildings werent designed or built as well as everyone thought they were?

[close]

the buildings were designed to withstand airplane crashes

read my post again, and carefully consider its implications

[Gomez]

theres so many things that are against common sense and reality that happened in the whole "offical" story, i'm not saying that it was some huge conspiricy but the story was definitly wrong and it didnt happen the way it supposedly did.

[biggums mcgee]

dagger weren't you pushing this 9/11 shit hardcore on everyone? get the fuck out of here with this hypocrosy. I'm pretty sure this was you...correct me if I'm wrong

[NickDagger]

So the theory you have is that they were demolished, with explosives. Yes?

Then why go the trouble of having a very risky plan involving crashing planes into buildings? Which could have easily missed. Or the "fake terrorists?" Government agents(must be pretty dedicated if they were willing to die just to pull a quick one on us) could have been overpowered, as all they had were boxcutters, and on Flight 93 they almost were.

Imagine if they had been and their plot had gotten out to the public.

Or were the plans fake too? And misssles?

What about the dead people on the planes, were they made up too? And relatives in on the plot too?

And what about all the thousands of people witness to it, and around that area in downtown NYC all day?

No one sees anything?

Why did they use Saudis on the plane? If the plan was to attack Iraq? Why not use Iraqis?

Why not just go with a straight bomb-fake plot?

The building had already been attacked in that manner before?

THIS SHIT DONT MAKE NO SENSE MOTHER FUCKER

AND ALL YOU GOT IS "DERRR DA FUEL DONT BURN THAT HOT. LOOK IN THIS BLURRY PHOTO! THERES EXPLOSIVES EVIDENCE!!! BASED ON YOUR YEARS STUDYING THE SUBJECT


WHAT THE FUCK!!?!?