the 9/11 memory hole

reply to post by gottago


In addtion, the Carlyle Group was holding an annual convention in DC on 9/11/2001.

I neglected to also state the bin Laden family was in attendence at that annual convention. In addition, theirs was the only plane allowed to fly out on 9/11/2001.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Bsbray, we have a precedent of fire effect in WTC 1 in 1975. We know what did not happen in 1975. That was not the same type of fire as 2001. It was worse with far more thermal energy in concentration at the 11th floor.

That has nothing to do with my last post.

It is easy to speak in "absolute terms" when there is already a precedent set from a prior period. Do you still have a problem with assessing and evaluating 2001 by 1975? If so, what exactly would it be?

That also has nothing to do with my last post. The closest you come are the words "absolute terms" but my point was that you don't really know what was or wasn't corroded in those buildings, when, or how. To suggest that you do is either dishonest or foolish. Be realistic. You probably don't even know what exactly is going on right now behind the walls of your own house.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Not trying to come across as an ass but wouldn't it suck to argue with someone who thought they knew things for sure that they really didn't? I mean those were very large buildings that stood for about 30 years, and no doubt had many various inspections, but for which little to no records are available. Did you know the North Tower caught on fire in 1999? That there were more than 10 major fires in the towers since their construction, before they were destroyed? There was a significant fire in WTC7 in 1988 if I'm not mistaken. If I had asked you if any of those events ever occurred before you knew about them, would you have said "yes" or "no" or "I don't know"? It really does make a big difference.

You can argue all you wish. However, unless you can provide substantiation of what you assert, you can easily be arguing with yourself. Or arguing with someone else enjoying arguing to argue. I do not enjoy it.

All it tells me, from what you assert, is the north tower could take a real lickin' and keep on tickin'. Is that what you are trying accomplish? Giving kudos to the north tower for appearing invincible? If not, what are you trying to prove?

Originally posted by bsbray11

That has nothing to do with my last post.

That also has nothing to do with my last post. The closest you come are the words "absolute terms" but my point was that you don't really know what was or wasn't corroded in those buildings, when, or how. To suggest that you do is either dishonest or foolish. Be realistic. You probably don't even know what exactly is going on right now behind the walls of your own house.

As I quite recently stated in a prior post, I am not certain what your point(s) were. You praise the buildings for appearing invincible. Was that your point? If not, exactly what was your point(s)?

Originally posted by OrionStars
You can argue all you wish. However, unless you can provide substantiation of what you assert,

Uh, I should "provide substantiation" that you shouldn't use absolute terms when you don't really know something? You would think that would just kind of be an obvious sort of thing.

you can easily be arguing with yourself. Or arguing with someone else enjoying arguing to argue. I do not enjoy it.

I think you've developed a fixation on this from other people telling you the same thing. Just my opinion. I'm not even arguing with you about anything, really, and this is all off-topic and wasting the thread.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Uh, I should "provide substantiation" that you shouldn't use absolute terms when you don't really know something? You would think that would just kind of be an obvious sort of thing.

You are deliberately being argumentative. I was quite clear in what I stated to you regarding substantiation.

You are still not making logical sense. You claimed all those fires took place, and provided nothing to substantiate those claims. The 1975 fire has been substantiated by me several times in posts in these discussions. I also substantiated the 1993 bomb at the sub-level of WTC 1. That is the type of substantiation you will have to make to prove what you state. I do not how much clearer I can define the meaning of subtantiation of claims/assertions.

Originally posted by OrionStars
You are still not making logical sense. You claimed all those fires took place, and provided nothing to substantiate those claims.

Oh, so you don't believe there were additional fires in the towers and Building 7? I thought you would just take my word for it.

November 10, 1999: North WTC Tower Suffers Last ‘Significant’ Fire Prior to 9/11; Bigger Fire Occurred in 1975

The North Tower of the WTC suffers a fire on its 104th floor. This is the 15th and last of what the National Institute of Standards and Technology later describes as “significant fires,” which occurred in the Twin Towers from 1975 onwards, and prior to 9/11. These fires each activate up to three sprinklers but are confined to just one floor. [Kuligowski, Evans, and Peacock, 9/2005, pp. 7-11]

wtc.nist.gov...


But I should probably say again that those fires weren't my real point. They were given as an example of something you weren't aware of, that could make a difference as to what you know about something and how you think of it.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by bsbray11]

I would give eye teeth to see all the material specs on the buildings. We have access to the blueprints but no actual material specs available.

Knock yourself out

Frank Greening's Concrete Calculation
The floors in the core areas were made of normal weight concrete, density 1760 kg/m3
The floors in the office areas were made of lightweight concrete, density 1500 kg/m3
Volume of 5-inch normal weight concrete per floor = 109.5 m3
Weight of normal weight concrete per floor = 193 tonnes
Volume of 4-inch thick lightweight concrete per floor = 289.4 m3
Weight of lightweight concrete per floor = 434 tonnes

undicisettembre.blogspot.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

reply to post by bsbray11


Apparently, you still do not get it. I does not matter what I think. What matters is you prove what you assert. Then I can think about it your proof/substantiation. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless for me or anyone else. Do you seriously expect people to just buy what you assert at face value? If so, why?

reply to post by OrionStars



Umm, no, the Bin Laden family was not allowed to leave the United States, until after air travel had resumed. They were gathered (by the US government) into one spot, so the adults could be questioned by the FBI.

reply to post by bsbray11


"Significant fire" is highly vague. What do they mean by "significatnt fire"? Vague terms are not substantiation. Details are.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Umm, no, the Bin Laden family was not allowed to leave the United States, until after air travel had resumed. They were gathered (by the US government) into one spot, so the adults could be questioned by the FBI.

I stand corrected. Now I will correct you. They were under FBI and Bush's personal Secret Service protection, as members of the Bush family long time business association and friendship through Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group did meet on 9/11/2001 in DC.

Bin Ladens left on 9/13/2001. You are correct that they did not leave on 9/11/2001. It was 9/13/2001 instead.

Nope, the family left on Sept. 20, 2001. Granted, you will not accept that because it was in 9/11 Commission Report. Yes Carlyle met that day in Washington more than 100 people were in attendance, and by the reports, ONE member of the Bin Laden family. Again, according to reports Daddy Bush was there for only a short time because he had a plane to catch (p.s. he ended up in Cleveland when the jets were ordered to land).

Most likely to personally oversee the execution of all the passengers that day. (those of you that know me, should know the last statement is pure sarcasm)

reply to post by thedman


No offense thedman, but Greening has the same amount of information as we do as far as construction documents. So, his assumptions are just that. Assumptions.

reply to post by thedman


I said see the actual material specs not read someone's hypothetical math opinion about them. I cannot believe I am having to explain what I meant to any reasonable person. So what are you telling me with your comments?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


You are wrong on that one. You best research the date. You are going to find you are wrong.

Let me check again.....


Yep, 9/11 Commission Report states that the Bin Laden family members that were in the States on 9/11, left the country on 9/20...

These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Laden flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot. This agent, coordinating with FBI headquarters, sent an electionic commmunication to each of the field offices through which the Bin Ladin flight was scheduled to pass, including the proposed flight manifest and directing what screening should occur. He also monitored the flight as it moved around the country –from St Louis to Los Angelos to Orlando to Washington Dulles and to Boston Logan --- correcting for any changes in itinerary to make sure there was no lapse in FBI screening at these locations

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


The 9/11/2001 Commission Reports. It figures. That is the same report the co-chairs said was not accurate in their book and public interviews. You are relying on a report the co-chairs stated was not accurate? Not me.

Originally posted by Retikx

-hijackers passport (ejected out of his pocket through the fireball to the street)

Just to address this one, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, in a huge fireball, liquid and solid rocket fuel, they recovered most of the bodies. Even though the thing BLEW UP big time, the crew compartment was relatively untouched after the explosion... many believe the crew was alive during free fall and died on impact with the water.

The pilot said "Uh-oh" after the first explosion of the shuttle. He knew something was up. They were still alive. Some of the oxygen masks were activated.




Just something to think about.....