Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White
 Share

Recommended Posts

Len,

You know I have absolutely nothing against you, so please accept this as a genuine suggestion - could you please just use standard font & size, with bolding where required? I often wish to read your posts but find the differing fonts, sizes, and incomplete HTML tags very distracting to try and read. Sorry, but there is so much to digest and the chaotic formatting really puts me off.

Cheers,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Len,

You know I have absolutely nothing against you, so please accept this as a genuine suggestion - could you please just use standard font & size, with bolding where required? I often wish to read your posts but find the differing fonts, sizes, and incomplete HTML tags very distracting to try and read. Sorry, but there is so much to digest and the chaotic formatting really puts me off.

Cheers,

I am not really sure why that happens. I normally compose longer posts with a word processor and use ‘Arial’ font (standard for this forum) and the same font size through out. Sometime when I post my message it gets reformatted a bit, which is due to a glitch in the forum’s software.

The only time I intentionally use different fonts / colors is when the “wrap in quote” function properly and I do so to differentiate between my comments and those of the person (people) I’m quoting.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of members appear to have made up their minds about a number of issues in favour of the official theory. There is a lot of information and disinformation about 911 on the web, but my main concern surrounds the WTC towers and building 7. The pentagon strike is now so awash with contraversy it may never be resolved.

The shanksville crash has the least information available, but in my mind is the most obvious. There was no plane at the crash site, debris was scattered over a wide area - it was shot down. It was late in the day. Three planes had already hit their targets and a fourth being allowed to succeed would have raised too many questions. So they shot it down.

See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html for photos. Don't bother reading the site. I'm listing the URL for photo evidence only.

The local coroner Wallace Miller was quoted as saying:

I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there

They were however found scattered all over the place.

Here are my thoughts on the WTC:

The WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 (at least) were brought down by controlled demolition.

There are literally hundreds of witness testimonies (many from firefighters) referring to secondary explosions within both towers.

Hydro-carbon fires are not sufficient to melt or even weaken steel enough to cause a collapse on the scale suggested. Jet fuel burns at well below the melting or even weakening points of steel.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

The melting/weakening points of steel are calcuated for steel isolated from materials which would conduct the heat away from the point of contact. In a steel lattice heat would be dissipated away from the point of contact and therefore reduce the chances of the heat source reaching the required temperature.

The steel was also fireproofed and the central building shafts hermetically sealed to prevent the spread of fire.

We saw no raging inferno. Most of the jet fuel ignited outside the buildings on impact. Survivors of the initial impact were able to stand in the holes left by the planes.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

Why was molten metal found in the ruins and basement of the towers 12 weeks after 911? There must have been some incredibly high temperatures involved in the collapse of these towers.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

The sort of temperatures achieved by thermite reactions which cut though steel like a hot knife through butter. The sort of reactions which may be visible in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk...search=thermite

If you refer back to the New Scientist article, it mentions massive UV emissions at ground zero - something also associated with thermite reactions. See http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/pyrotechnics-faq.html

Note also that NS article states that UV absorbing FEF foam was also used on the fires at WTC 7.

Add to this explosive 'squibs' preceeding the collapse of each floor, the presence of fine dust projected 100s of meters from the WTC and indeed vertically up in to the air during the collapse and the question marks appear to shift from the goverment 'theory' to a quite different one.

There are too many problems with the official theory.

Everything, that could have gone wrong for the US, with one exception, went wrong. Failed air defences, weak steel, huge collateral damage, ignored intelligence, poor airport security, military drills masking real-world events etc.

The exception was the impact location of Flight 77 in an all-but-abandoned, reinforced section of the pentagon - phew, what a stroke of luck that was.

Then there is the hijackers. It all went very well for them. 19 hijackers(with dodgy entry visas, acquired as a result of more government failure) armed with box-cutters made it onto 4 commercial flights, over-powered the pilots, took control of an aircraft they were ill-equipped to fly, switched off the navigation beacons and then flew and navigated manually to their targets, without being intercepted.

I'd call that 10-1 to the terrorists. I would also say the one we scored, might be described as an own-goal we would have welcomed.

By the way, if you add in that all this has resulted in a new foreign policy initiative which was originally outlined by members of the Project for a New American Century and include many current and former (911 era) members of the Bush administration it all gets a little hard to believe.

As a bonus, Unocol's Afghan pipeline is now completed. Negotiations for it broke down in the summer of 2001. Just a coincidence, I am sure.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

I tend to view 911 as just one chapter in the long history of Western lies and deception to satisfy foreign policy and resource objectives. We did it in Suez, Panama, Vietnam, we've been doing it in Iran and Iraq since the discovery of oil - the list is endless. Why do we insist on believing everything our governments tell us, when we know they lie to us. We used to think they lied occassionally or a few bad apples like Nixon were the exception, but now we see almost daily revelations of deception and betrayal. Their first course of action is to lie. Blair has just been caught out again. So he lies. Bush denied wire-tapping. Israel denied bombing the family on the beach. They have all been shown to lie. Why is 911 any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of members appear to have made up their minds about a number of issues in favour of the official theory. There is a lot of information and disinformation about 911 on the web, but my main concern surrounds the WTC towers and building 7. The pentagon strike is now so awash with contraversy it may never be resolved.

The shanksville crash has the least information available, but in my mind is the most obvious. There was no plane at the crash site, debris was scattered over a wide area - it was shot down. It was late in the day. Three planes had already hit their targets and a fourth being allowed to succeed would have raised too many questions. So they shot it down.

See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html for photos. Don't bother reading the site. I'm listing the URL for photo evidence only.

The local coroner Wallace Miller was quoted as saying:

I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there

They were however found scattered all over the place.

Here are my thoughts on the WTC:

The WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 (at least) were brought down by controlled demolition.

There are literally hundreds of witness testimonies (many from firefighters) referring to secondary explosions within both towers.

Hydro-carbon fires are not sufficient to melt or even weaken steel enough to cause a collapse on the scale suggested. Jet fuel burns at well below the melting or even weakening points of steel.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

The melting/weakening points of steel are calcuated for steel isolated from materials which would conduct the heat away from the point of contact. In a steel lattice heat would be dissipated away from the point of contact and therefore reduce the chances of the heat source reaching the required temperature.

The steel was also fireproofed and the central building shafts hermetically sealed to prevent the spread of fire.

We saw no raging inferno. Most of the jet fuel ignited outside the buildings on impact. Survivors of the initial impact were able to stand in the holes left by the planes.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

Why was molten metal found in the ruins and basement of the towers 12 weeks after 911? There must have been some incredibly high temperatures involved in the collapse of these towers.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634

The sort of temperatures achieved by thermite reactions which cut though steel like a hot knife through butter. The sort of reactions which may be visible in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk...search=thermite

If you refer back to the New Scientist article, it mentions massive UV emissions at ground zero - something also associated with thermite reactions. See http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/pyrotechnics-faq.html

Note also that NS article states that UV absorbing FEF foam was also used on the fires at WTC 7.

Add to this explosive 'squibs' preceeding the collapse of each floor, the presence of fine dust projected 100s of meters from the WTC and indeed vertically up in to the air during the collapse and the question marks appear to shift from the goverment 'theory' to a quite different one.

There are too many problems with the official theory.

Everything, that could have gone wrong for the US, with one exception, went wrong. Failed air defences, weak steel, huge collateral damage, ignored intelligence, poor airport security, military drills masking real-world events etc.

The exception was the impact location of Flight 77 in an all-but-abandoned, reinforced section of the pentagon - phew, what a stroke of luck that was.

Then there is the hijackers. It all went very well for them. 19 hijackers(with dodgy entry visas, acquired as a result of more government failure) armed with box-cutters made it onto 4 commercial flights, over-powered the pilots, took control of an aircraft they were ill-equipped to fly, switched off the navigation beacons and then flew and navigated manually to their targets, without being intercepted.

I'd call that 10-1 to the terrorists. I would also say the one we scored, might be described as an own-goal we would have welcomed.

By the way, if you add in that all this has resulted in a new foreign policy initiative which was originally outlined by members of the Project for a New American Century and include many current and former (911 era) members of the Bush administration it all gets a little hard to believe.

As a bonus, Unocol's Afghan pipeline is now completed. Negotiations for it broke down in the summer of 2001. Just a coincidence, I am sure.

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

I tend to view 911 as just one chapter in the long history of Western lies and deception to satisfy foreign policy and resource objectives. We did it in Suez, Panama, Vietnam, we've been doing it in Iran and Iraq since the discovery of oil - the list is endless. Why do we insist on believing everything our governments tell us, when we know they lie to us. We used to think they lied occassionally or a few bad apples like Nixon were the exception, but now we see almost daily revelations of deception and betrayal. Their first course of action is to lie. Blair has just been caught out again. So he lies. Bush denied wire-tapping. Israel denied bombing the family on the beach. They have all been shown to lie. Why is 911 any different?

Steve...what an impressive summary! Thanks.

However, I disagree with your statement about the Pentagon "controversy". It is

easily the most clear-cut of the four incidents.

And you need to add the EXPLOSION OF BUILDING 6, which is very little known.

Thanks again for your comprehensive understanding of what happened.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I deliberately leave out building 6 because there is so little coverage of it. I tend to concentrate on things I consider to be absolutes and for which evidence exists. That is why I concentrate on the WTC. I have dabbled in the Pentagon, but to be honest, if the WTC is an inside job then so was the rest of it.

The lack of coverage for Building 6 & 7 are in themselves another area of suspicion, along with Silverstein's 'pull it' admission and subsequent retraction. To be honest, there are so many problems with the official story I am amazed anyone believes it much less a few 'nutcase conspiracy theorists' :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I deliberately leave out building 6 because there is so little coverage of it. I tend to concentrate on things I consider to be absolutes and for which evidence exists. That is why I concentrate on the WTC. I have dabbled in the Pentagon, but to be honest, if the WTC is an inside job then so was the rest of it.

The lack of coverage for Building 6 & 7 are in themselves another area of suspicion, along with Silverstein's 'pull it' admission and subsequent retraction. To be honest, there are so many problems with the official story I am amazed anyone believes it much less a few 'nutcase conspiracy theorists' :lol:

Steve...there is lots of material on Building 6 if you know where to look.

It is astounding that it is ignored. See my websites:

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies109.htm

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

Your post is particularly misinformed

A lot of members appear to have made up their minds about a number of issues in favour of the official theory. There is a lot of information and disinformation about 911 on the web, but my main concern surrounds the WTC towers and building 7. The pentagon strike is now so awash with contraversy it may never be resolved.

The shanksville crash has the least information available, but in my mind is the most obvious. There was no plane at the crash site, debris was scattered over a wide area - it was shot down. It was late in the day. Three planes had already hit their targets and a fourth being allowed to succeed would have raised too many questions. So they shot it down.

See http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html for photos. Don't bother reading the site. I'm listing the URL for photo evidence only.

The local coroner Wallace Miller was quoted as saying:

I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there

They were however found scattered all over the place.

You seem to be conflating two theories 1) that there really was no plane and that their was a plane but it was shot down.

No bodies were found only small bits of human tissue. This and the fragmentation of the plane are consistent with a crash at 500 mph (800 kph) into the ground at a acute angle. The "debris" found "miles away" was mostly paper. I posted a photo of the debris field of an American Eagle crash there was no more plane left either. On Hoffman's site there are plenty of pix of crash sites where there is no recognizable planes either look at the pix of the planes that crashed in apt, buildings in Terhan and Amsterdam. Look at Ron's thread all the witnesses said the plane was in one piece when it crashed

"Here are my thoughts on the WTC:

The WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 (at least) were brought down by controlled demolition.

There are literally hundreds of witness testimonies (many from firefighters) referring to secondary explosions within both towers."

Explosion like noises aren't always explosions and explosions aren't always caused by explosives. Steel makes quite a bit of noise when it snaps, elevators plummeted to the bottom of their shafts and transformers can make quite a bang when they explode too. There were reports of explosions at the Torre Windsor fire in Madrid, do you think there were explosives planted in that building as well?

Hydro-carbon fires are not sufficient to melt or even weaken steel enough to cause a collapse on the scale suggested. Jet fuel burns at well below the melting or even weakening points of steel.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

Strange then that not a single qualified expert backs this position. That's because it simply isn't true steel looses 50% of it's strength at 1100 F as your own source correctly notes. At 1800 F it looses about 90 % (1). You and your source debunked a strawman by only considering the jet fuel as a fuel source. NIST and the American Society of Civil Engineers / Structural Engineers Association of NY ASCE / SEAoNY in their reports as well as the vast majority scientific papers and articles about the collapse determined/calculated that the primary fuel source was the flammable contents of the towers. NIST calculated that pockets of the fire reached 1800 F (1000 C) (2). Studies unrelated to the collapse of the towers have determined that home or office fires can reach 1120 C (2050 F) (3) or even 1300 C (2370 F) (4). Another study showed that mattress fires can heat springs to over 2100 F (1148 C) (5). The steel structure of the towers probably would not have been heated to the same temperatures as the flames but the calculated / potential temperatures FAR exceeded the point at which steel begins to fail. If hydrocarbon fires couldn't weaken steel one must wonder why fire codes the world over demand that structural steel be "fireproofed"

[ Sources 1) http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...842.html?page=4 2) ibid, NIST report and ASCE / FEMA report 3) http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...ves/default.htm , 4) http://projects.bre.co.uk/FRSdiv/ecsc/ 5) http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf ]

The melting/weakening points of steel are calcuated for steel isolated from materials which would conduct the heat away from the point of contact. In a steel lattice heat would be dissipated away from the point of contact and therefore reduce the chances of the heat source reaching the required temperature.

True up to a point but without any quantitative calculations backed by scientific studies this tidbit isn't helpful

"The steel was also fireproofed and the central building shafts hermetically sealed to prevent the spread of fire."

The steel was fireproofed but with fragile materials "spray on" foam on the floor systems (trusses etc) and perimeter columns and drywall in the central core. As was widely reported this fireproofing is believed to have been largely destroyed / damaged in the impact zones. Please cite a source for the claim that "the central building shafts (were) hermetically sealed to prevent the spread of fire" this makes no sense people in the shafts could have suffocated, doors opening would have broken the seal, the elevator shafts most definitely weren't sealed this would have slowed the elevators down.

"We saw no raging inferno. Most of the jet fuel ignited outside the buildings on impact. Survivors of the initial impact were able to stand in the holes left by the planes."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html"

Obviously the temperatures would not have been uniform through out the towers there are numerous photos that show raging fires NYFD commander said they would not be able to extinguish the fires.

"Why was molten metal found in the ruins and basement of the towers 12 weeks after 911? There must have been some incredibly high temperatures involved in the collapse of these towers.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634"

Your source does not make any reference to the temperatures being "incredibly" or unusually high or to molten metal being seen or found anywhere. There is NO forensic evidence that molten metal was found anywhere at Ground Zero, although I think blobs of resolidified aluminum were found. Aluminum melts at around 1100 F (660 C) depending on the exact alloy [ http://www.muggyweld.com/melting.html ] a tempreture easily obtained in the debris pile fire.

"The sort of temperatures achieved by thermite reactions which cut though steel like a hot knife through butter. The sort of reactions which may be visible in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk...search=thermite"

May be but then again may be not there is no evidence this is molten steel

"If you refer back to the New Scientist article, it mentions massive UV emissions at ground zero - something also associated with thermite reactions. See http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/pyrotechnics-faq.html"

The article DIDN'T say there were "massive UV emissions at ground zero" though it said that they (UV emissions) are associated with fire. You misquoted the article 3 times did you actually read it?

"Note also that NS article states that UV absorbing FEF foam was also used on the fires at WTC 7."

It also states that the foam when added to water makes heat transfer more efficient which seems to be it's primary function so you statement was misleading.

"Add to this explosive 'squibs' preceeding the collapse of each floor…"

No qualified experts agree with "inside jobber" claims that the what are probably smoke / dust clouds are in fact 'squibs'.

"…the presence of fine dust projected 100s of meters from the WTC and indeed vertically up in to the air during the collapse…"

Why the kinetic energy of the collapse of a 1360 foot (450 meter) plus building weighing 500,000 tons (each) is enormous.

"There are too many problems with the official theory."

Most (if not all) of the "problems" are based on mistakes and false assumptions there are too many holes in and no expert backing for the "inside job" theory.

"Everything, that could have gone wrong for the US, with one exception, went wrong. Failed air defences, weak steel, huge collateral damage, ignored intelligence, poor airport security, military drills masking real-world events etc."

-Pre 9/11 air defenses were set up to deal with external threats coming into the US and Canada

-No one is claimed the steel in the towers was weak

-Inside jobbers normally claim that the LACK of greater collateral damage is suspicious

-The hijackers are believed to have chosen Portland (were the hijackers of flights 11 and 175 were screened and flew to Logan from), Newark and Dulles because of lax security. Two years after 9/11 a college student was able to smuggle box cutters aboard at least

two flights [ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/10/17/suspicious.baggage/ ]

-The government never claimed that the drills 'masked' "real-world events" this is yet another CT strawman. Most of (if not all) the drills were cancelled when the hijackings were reported,. The biggest one was taking place over Alaska and northern Canada so I doubt it would have had any effect on tracking or intercepting flights thousands of miles away.

"Then there is the hijackers. It all went very well for them. 19 hijackers(with dodgy entry visas, acquired as a result of more government failure) armed with box-cutters made it onto 4 commercial flights, over-powered the pilots…"

-Pre 9/11 the pilots probably assumed their chances or survival were greater by not fighting back casualties from hijackings were normally quite low. Box cutters which are basically heavy duty razor blades mounted in a handle can be quite deadly and in fact it's believed they killed people at the beginning of the hijackings. They also claimed to have bombs

"…took control of an aircraft they were ill-equipped to fly, switched off the navigation beacons and then flew and navigated manually to their targets…"

What you call the navigation beacon* is really the transponder it only serves to identify a plane and pass information like speed and attitude to flight controllers. It being turned off would in no way have prohibited them from using autopilot at other navigational aides. The most difficult parts of a flight are take off and landing, the planes were a cruise altitude. A dean from the University of Texas with no flight training was allowed by the pilot of a two seat F-15 to fly the plane and take it over the speed of sound [ http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/dorn/jordan_speech.php ]

* "navigation beacons" are on the ground and normally are located at or near airports.

"…without being intercepted."

-As I already pointed out on another thread, the only interception of a plane over the US (as opposed to over the ocean) in the 10 years before 9/11 was that of Payne Stewart. The plane was flying in a straight line with its transponder on in the uncrowded airspace over America's heartland but it took over an hour for a fighter already in the air to intercept it.

"By the way, if you add in that all this has resulted in a new foreign policy initiative which was originally outlined by members of the Project for a New American Century and include many current and former (911 era) members of the Bush administration it all gets a little hard to believe"

Where exactly did PNAC call for invading Afghanistan, Iraq or any other country?

"I tend to view 911 as just one chapter in the long history of Western lies and deception to satisfy foreign policy and resource objectives. We did it in Suez, Panama, Vietnam, we've been doing it in Iran and Iraq since the discovery of oil - the list is endless. Why do we insist on believing everything our governments tell us, when we know they lie to us. We used to think they lied occassionally or a few bad apples like Nixon were the exception, but now we see almost daily revelations of deception and betrayal. Their first course of action is to lie. Blair has just been caught out again. So he lies. Bush denied wire-tapping. Israel denied bombing the family on the beach. They have all been shown to lie. Why is 911 any different?"

"Inside job" theories fall apart based on evidence independent of US government claims note that even many JFK assassination researchers aren't buying them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

This might be over egging the pudding but.

Jet fuel burns at 800f-1500f not hot enough to melt steel, however, all exprrts agree that for the towers to collapse the steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. And that required much less heat.

New york dep fire chief Vincent Dunn, Author of "The collapse of burning biuldings"..."I have never seen melted steel in a building fire, but I have seen alot of twisted, warped,bent and sagging steel. What happens is the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand it sags, and the surronding concrete cracks."

Senior Engineer Farid Alfawak-Hiri...."Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100f, and at 1800f it retains less than 10%."

And of course the resulting inferno was greatly intensified by the combustible material already in the Towers. Rugs, curtains, furniture, paper, plastics etc.

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven.. my opinion about 9-11, for what it's worth.

9-11 was clearly carried out by Arab terrorists co-ordinated by Usama bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan (please note that in what follows, the term "Arab Terrorist" should be read as synonymous with "Islamic Extremist". I’ve spared the reader the tedium of the correct full term "Arab Islamic Terrorist Extremist")

These are my reasons:

Only Arab terrorists would be clever enough to either to amend the laws of nature on 9-11, or to rig WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 for demolition, accessing the buildings well in advance to plant the explosive devices (buildings leased by the property magnates Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy, both well-known Moslem sympathizers).

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to get through the airports used by the targeted planes on 9-11 without leaving a record on numerous CCTV tapes. (Arab terrorists have developed extra skills over the years on how to fool Israeli-owned security companies)

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to make millions by 9-11 related insider-trading - then arrange with the authorities to quietly shelve the subsequent investigations and ensure there was no effective follow-up to the story in the western mass media.

Only Arab terrorists would have been sneaky enough to persuade the FBI to confiscate all the private CCTV tapes taken close to the Pentagon attack and to withhold them for at least five years.

Only Arab terrorists would be devious enough to try to frame themselves, soon afterwards, during the now widely-overlooked "anthrax scare" by sending a letter to the FBI wrongly accusing an Arab scientist of the attacks.

Only Arab terrorists would have been clever enough to tip off a few Mossad agents on 9-11 and arrange for them to be observed fooling around and making whoopee while the towers smoldered.

Only Arab terrorists would have been able to manipulate Mossad into conducting a major operation in the USA prior to 9-11 - then ensure that some 200 of them were sent back to the USA without charge (including the previously mentioned team operating in NYC).

Only Arab terrorists can carry out aeronautically impossible feats with Boeing jets - then make the craft disappear without trace on impact at at least one of the crash locations (the Pentagon).

Only Arab terrorists could arrange for the willful destruction of forensic evidence such as all the steel from the WTC towers in the immediate aftermath of the attacks - destruction of evidence that was protested at the time by professional firefighters.

Only Arab terrorists would arrange for a cavalcade of Israeli and 'neocon' commentators to appear on western mainstream media in the hours following the attacks, blaming Arabs for the crimes.

Only Arab terrorists would ensure their own names - as perpetrators - were widely disseminated by the western mass media in the hours following the attacks (they learnt this trick from Lee Harvey Oswald).

Only Arab terrorists would have chosen to perpetrate such an atrocity in the days following the UN conference on Racism in South Africa, where the behavior of Israel and its US poodle was widely criticized and the pro-Israeli extremism of these two nations were rejected by rest of the world community. The dastardly action by Arab terrorists in carrying out the 9-11 atrocities ensured the momentum of the Palestinian's Second Intifada was blunted and brought maximum pressure to bear on supporters of Palestine - especially Arab nations and communities such as Saudi Arabia – to cease funding 'Arab Terrorism' in any form (such as providing assistance to Palestinian or Lebanese resistance fighters).

After all, only Arabs would be mad enough to do this to themselves – and all because they “hate our freedoms!”

I could continue... but is there really any need?

It's as clear as the case of RFK's murder - obviously, 9-11 was also the handiwork of an angry Arab nutcase/s with truly magical powers.

It's so OBVIOUS who was responsible for 9-11 that this truly is a "case closed" (to coin a phrase popularized by the well-known Zionist Gerald Posner in relation to another, earlier crime against the people of the USA and the world).

Surely the real question to be asked is whether we ordinary folk should be allowed to discuss it at all?

History has spoken, after all.

Shouldn't we be concerned that dissenting views about 9-11 might be racist and conducive to public disorder?

What if there’s another terrorist outrage, this time carried out by crazed "9-11 Truthseekers" working in cahoots with Arab terrorists. That would surely demonstrate beyond doubt the need to ban dissident views on this topic for public safety reasons.

Now, I realize it would be WITHOUT PRECEDENT to stifle free and open discussion about ANY historical topic and to subject ANY dissident historians to trial by media and imprisonment. Yet since the truth about 9-11 is a given, anyone who doubts it must have a pathological condition brought about by years of irrational hatred (although it may be OK to imagine that the wicked Bush Administration might have pulled a LIHOP*).

Now, back to my TV. Observing recent events in Lebanon and the Gaza, I reflect on how lucky we are in the western world to be Israel’s allies in the “War on Terror”.

It is so great to be on the side of peace, truth, freedom and justice and to see “our side” in action again, targeting terrorists with “precision operations” and “surgical strikes”! A little collateral damage here and there is surely a small price to pay in furtherance of this noble enterprise.

____________________________________

* LIHOP = "Let it happen on purpose". Under this scenario, elements in the US Government had advanced warning of the impending 9-11 attacks by superhuman Arab terrorists, but overlooked the warnings for various sneaky reasons mainly driven by the interests of the American oil industry.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len,

You seem to be conflating two theories 1) that there really was no plane and that their was a plane but it was shot down

No, there was no plane at the crash site because it was shot out of the air. This is why aircraft debris, not paper, was found scattered over 8 square miles.

Finding the flight data recorder had been the focus of investigators as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine. [Pittsburgh Post Gazette]
"Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away [from the crash site] in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky." [idaho Observer]
Investigators also are combing a second crime scene in nearby Indian Lake, where residents reported hearing the doomed jetliner flying over at a low altitude before "falling apart on their homes."

"People were calling in and reporting pieces of plane falling," a state trooper said. Jim Stop reported he had seen the hijacked Boeing 757 fly over him as he was fishing. He said he could see parts falling from the plane. [pittsburghlive.com]

The US Government insists the plane exploded on impact yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other light debris was found scattered over eight miles away[Daily Mirror-UK]

People don't tend to regard bits of paper as aircraft debris.

Is there something unique about the speed these planes were travelling at which made them disintegrate? Don't all plane crashes occur at high speed? Flight 93 appears to have disintegrated completely.

In the case of flight 93, not a single recognizable aircraft part, including engines, is visible at the supposed crash site.

Look at Ron's thread all the witnesses said the plane was in one piece when it crashed

I hadn't realized there where any witnesses to the crash. Some saw a mushroom cloud. Many witnesses spoke of debris raining from the sky.

Explosion like noises aren't always explosions and explosions aren't always caused by explosives. Steel makes quite a bit of noise when it snaps, elevators plummeted to the bottom of their shafts and transformers can make quite a bang when they explode too. There were reports of explosions at the Torre Windsor fire in Madrid, do you think there were explosives planted in that building as well?
NBC Reporter Pat Dawson on the morning of 9-11:

...The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York told me that...er...he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact was, he thinks, may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building...er... so that's what we have been told by...erm...Albert Turi who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he told me that just moments ago.

Where is the inferno which caused all this? The smoke rising from the towers is black suggesting it is oxygen starved. I see very little fire. Unlike the Madrid fire which burned out of control for many hours and didn't collapse. The WTC towers burned at a very low intensity on a few floors (if that) for around an hour and then collapsed like an Portugese footballer (if your not into 'soccer' - you'd think they'd been shot with an elephant gun).

Obviously the temperatures would not have been uniform through out the towers there are numerous photos that show raging fires NYFD commander said they would not be able to extinguish the fires.

This is contradicted by the woman standing in the 'raging inferno.'

1) So why did all the towers fall in a uniform manner?

and Why was the resistance uniform?

and Why did the towers begin to collapse from above the impact/fire zone?

2) Photos please.

3) NYFD firemen(in the WTC fighting the fires) are heard on radio saying the fires are not bad and should be able to 'knock them down with 2 lines'

4) The woman standing in the gap may be in a better position to comment on the severity of the fires than the NYFD commander. Also, she presumably braved a raging inferno(obscurred inside the tower) to get to her position of safety. She's even leaning against one of the melting steel beams.

Your info about the temperature of the fires is interesting, but without an unchecked oxygen-rich fire in the buildings I cannot attribute this as the cause of the collapse.

If hydrocarbon fires couldn't weaken steel one must wonder why fire codes the world over demand that structural steel be "fireproofed"

If fireproofing steel does not prevent buildings collapsing from trivial short-term hydrocarbon fires then why are we bothering to take any fire precautions at all? It would appear that nothing can prevent a fire from causing a building to crumble - except putting the fire out. Only, no buildings before or since have ever collapsed from fire - just these 4! Including Tower 1 which had a far more serious fire in 1975 before it's fire proofing was upgraded (to 1.5 inches) and sprinklers added.

http://www.total911.info/2005/04/1975-wtc-...floors-for.html

The sprinkler system appears to have had no effect either. Shall we make that 11-1 to the hijackers.

Regarding my point about heat dissipation - you wrote:

True up to a point but without any quantitative calculations backed by scientific studies this tidbit isn't helpful

Yeah, I know, but it would presumably have some effect in reducing heat - perhaps substantially. I don't know the physics involved - perhaps someone else on the forum does?

Strange then that not a single qualified expert backs this position

I have seen a report/simulation which does fail to cause the towers to collapse. I will try and find it for you. They were only able to effect a collapse by introducing such huge stresses (which did not exist) that the simulation became useless.

Also, I am sure you are aware of Kevin Ryan's(Underwriter Labs) concerns.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00177.htm

Your source does not make any reference to the temperatures being "incredibly" or unusually high or to molten metal being seen or found anywhere

You are correct. Others sources do however.

There is NO forensic evidence that molten metal was found anywhere at Ground Zero

Forensic evidence - No. But, then again the evidence was never properly checked. It was carted away as soon as humanly possible. Evidence was actively and promptly destroyed in what should have been the most comprehensive criminal investigation in US history. Multiple non-forensic reports can be googled.

I've actually read most of the points you make elsewhere on the web and I am still unconvinced.

For the towers to collapse in the manner they did (pancake theory) - all the steel would have had to have been compromised in the way you suggest (and probably to the same degree). Which it was not. It was designed to hold the weight of the building above and like all contruction projects was over-engineered. The massive kinetic energy you refer to would only have been applicable at the final moment of collapse and only at the base of the towers. For all floors whose steel was unaffected by fire/impact (most of them) - they would have offered considerable resistance to the falling matter above. This is the reason why controlled demolitions destroy the supporting columns throughout the building. Otherwise, you could simply start a one-floor collapse somewhere at the top of the building and bring the whole thing down - which you can not. The only additional kinetic energy was that of the falling distance of one floor and the weight of the number of floors above the collapse. Although, I seem to recall the collapse began at the top of the buildings. It certainly did for building 7. I am also totally convinced that horizontal floors falling vertically, even if their connection to the surrounding steel lattice failed (at all points simultaneously), would not be able to bring vertically aligned steel girders down. You may conceivably end up with 110 pancaked floors at the bottom of an intact steel frame. As the connections between the floor and core beams would fail long before the core beams failed along their length you would end up with all the core beams poking up thru the pancaked floors. The official pancake theory requires us to believe the opposite - that the floor connections to the core structure were sufficient to drag the core columns down vertically thru their strongest part whilst the core columns themselves were unable to support the additional kinetic energy of the collapse...piffle.

Besides whenever I hear a US President tell me 'let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories' - I just can't help myself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...