The simple reality of 9/11, what we know and what we don't

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by mark-in-dallas

Originally posted by pteridine
As to the buildings design and construction, the engineers plan and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

That Sir, is the most absurd statement I have ever heard.

Engineering designs don't always work as planned. Engineers sometimes make mistakes or get caught up with unforseen circumstances. Here is an example of something that almost worked but had a little, unforseen design flaw. en.wikipedia.org...(1940)

Would you like to explain your comment, above?

I think my comment speaks for itself, but OK I'll bite.

You found one bridge, out of how many ever built, that was improperly engineered, and use that as your basis for explaining poor engineering on the WTC towers?

Care to provide proof of any other high rise steel framed building ever built totally collapsing in on itself from a fire? You can't because there haven't been any.

Care to provide an example of 3 other high rise buildings totally collapsing neatly into their own footrints from a catastrophy, and without the aid of explosive demolishion?

You keep arrguing that if there was thermite involved how come it extinguished itself, yet agree that the fires raged at 1,500 degrees for months. Pick one or the other!

A better stance would have been to argue the amount of thermite it would have taken to bring the towers down.

reply to post by vipertech0596

The pipeline....already debunked years ago. Not to mention it was the CLINTON administration who invited that Taliban to Texas.......Governor Bush wasn't informed about it until the visit was already scheduled.

I wanted to start with this one first, as I think it will set the tone for the rest of this post.

LOL, Clinton was not even involved with the invitation of the Taliban to Texas. They weren't invited by the federal government, as they weren't even recognized by our government. Instead, they were invited by the energy industry. I remember this as clear as day. I remember seeing this on the local news around that time. The only reason why I remember it, is because I was about to study the region in college and I thought how weird it must be for these people to see Texas. It was Bush's oil connects in Texas who orchestrated the whole thing, completely independent of the federal government.

As far as the pipeline, I know for a fact that this was real. Ask any soldier who went over their with the army of surveyors who were tasked with surveying the route for the pipe-line. In fact, many of our brave young men have died protecting the proposed route and the surveyors finding it.

The pipeline was hardly debunked and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly lying to themselves or refusing to do their own research, not thinking for themselves. Then again, you thought Clinton invited the Taliban to Texas, only to surprise Bush. Check your information, before stating it as fact, as it will only hurt your credibility.

The insurance policy....NOT unprecedented, actually, his lenders wanted him to have a much larger policy.

Semantics my dear, semantics. In fact, the lenders would only require the buildings to be insured for the amount borrowed, since he would only need to pay off the borrowed amount for the lease.

You see, the WTC complex was actually a money pit, the reason why the Port Authority wanted to lease out the buildings in the first place. In fact, they tried to originally sell complex, but when that proved too complicated, the decided to lease it out. The buildings were plagued with vacancies and it was far too much office/retail space offered. In addition to that, it would far too expensive to demolish the buildings due to the asbestos, though there isn't any proof (that I'm aware of) that the Port Authority actually looked into the option. The lenders would be served much better for those buildings to come down, as a more efficient space could be erected, thus promising a more 'concrete' return.

The "independent" investigation...always a misnomer.. Very few people actually say who they felt would be "independent" enough to investigate. Not to mention what resources they would use. Face it, if you are going to complain the government did not spend enough money, then you need to drop your complaining about the investigation not being "independent". Because if it is being funded by the Government, it will not be independent.

Look, here is the thing, the relatively unimportant Lewinsky-Clinton scandal received far more funding that the investigation into the biggest terror attack on American soil. Furthermore, I don't think that Philip Zelikow was "independent" by any stretch of the imagination. Moving along, most people would agree that either people with lucrative connections to the government or industries involved, would not be considered "independent".

I don't get what you are trying to say, when arguing against both the funding and the conflicts of interests. When the funding was undermined and the conflicts of interest were as thick as they were, it means that the people didn't get a true investigation as to what happened and why.

If "independent" really was a misnomer, then you too should agree that we need a true and independent investigation. Why wouldn't we need one? Unfortunately, it was passed off as the real McCoy and many Americans think that it was truly independent.

If you don't think we should have an independent investigation, then why not just go ahead and rid ourselves of all child molester trials and murderers too? I just can't see for the life of me, how anyone could possibly be against such an action, a real investigation. Not only have we played in blood and money, but we have also paid with our liberties and reputation as well. You can hardly go anywhere in the world without getting an earpiece when people find out you are American, even to the point of being refused service. We are seen as the Nazis of the 21st century.

Moving on to not enough money being spent.....the Commission wasn't charged with putting on their coveralls and poking around Ground Zero. They were charged with going through the reports by other agencies, analyzing data, and interviewing officials who were involved in responding to the events that day.

You obviously don't understand economics-101. You need money to pay investigators, employees to sift through paperwork and number-crunchers to go over it. You also need supplies and equipment. If you don't have or can't afford the employees, supplies and equipment, you aren't going to be able to do much. Something you may not realize, is the men on the panel were only the tip of the ice-berg. Their purpose was only to act as "judge" while an army of investigators did all the work, only there was no army because there was no money.

Tell me this, for the Lewinsky-Clinton scandal, were the investigators charged with poking around Lewinsky? Why then did that need almost 10 times as much money as Bush tried to give the 9/11 commission?

It ultimately boils down to how many people can you hire and what caliber they are. What access can they get and what equipment can they utilize? Less money equals less accomplished. The smaller and more cash strapped the operation, the less effective it's going to be and that's just common sense.

In the examples cited in the OP, neither one of those actually involved sifting through rubble, or poking women.

The majority of the investigating, was done by the FBI, CIA, FDNY, NYPD, NSA etc......and it was their reports that the Commission received. So the comparison to the Columbia investigation is complete and total BS. The 15 billion spent by the Commission, does not include all the money spent by the other agencies investigating.

Actually, these agencies aren't really allowed to poke around the executive branch, or the legislative branch. While the FBI was poking around at ground zero, their investigation could only go as far as saying what happened, as far as planes hitting the towers. They sure weren't going to be poking around their bosses in the White House or US Capitol or even the elites, especially when ordered not to. The FBI does as ordered, such is the case when they were ordered to back off the Bin Laden family prior to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, according to the FBI, Bin Laden was not even wanted by the FBI as a suspect in the attacks.

Anyway, the FBI's investigation is irrelevant. As I have said earlier, this investigation was passed off as and supposed to be an independent investigation, just as the Lewinsky-Clinton scandal and the shuttle disasters. You are obviously confusing the initial intended goals of this panel, the ones the American people were asking for.

There is many more items that could be addressed, but that's enough for now.

You haven't really addressed anything. You are either clearly misinformed or you simply don't/can't understand how things work. You are clearly both wrong on your points (such as the pipeline) or lack the understanding on how things work (such as the investigation). I suggest that you not allow others to build the bigger picture for you because they almost always have biases or an agenda.

You would be better off researching the last 30 plus years of incompetence/negligence of our elected officials so you could see that the only thing being covered up about 9/11......was just how crappy a job they did over that 30 plus years.

This was the whole point of the thread. How on earth would you know what lead to 9/11? The truth is, you don't know any better than anyone else and judging by the rest of your post, I would actually say you know less than many, due to your lack of understand how things work, or you are simply misinformed, though probably a combination of both. I urge you to research the situation from the little pieces of evidence that are floating around, then build the bigger the picture on your own. Don't allow certain websites, committees, books or people build that picture for you.

If you can't build the bigger picture on your own, due to lack of evidence, then the only conclusion is that we need an investigation. You should never settle with taking someone's word for such a damaging incident, especially when that incident continues to threaten your way of life.

--airspoon

p.s. Normally, I wouldn't spend so much time debunking such an entirely false/off post as the post speaks for itself but after reading your take on the pipeline, I couldn't resist.

Just to note: I corrected your spelling when quoting.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The fact that they have to be strong enough and massive enough to hold themselves up makes that result inevitable.

This is obviously new territory to you, so let me try and explain things slowly and clearly.

Buildings are designed to suit the purpose and desire of the owner.

Buildings are designed to withstand loadings and forces that would NORMALLY be experienced during the expected economic life of the building.

Just because you can carefully stack "B" on top of "A" without "A" falling down, does not mean that you can DROP "B" on "A" and achieve the same results.

Originally posted by mark-in-dallas

I think my comment speaks for itself, but OK I'll bite.

You found one bridge, out of how many ever built, that was improperly engineered, and use that as your basis for explaining poor engineering on the WTC towers?

Care to provide proof of any other high rise steel framed building ever built totally collapsing in on itself from a fire? You can't because there haven't been any.

Care to provide an example of 3 other high rise buildings totally collapsing neatly into their own footrints from a catastrophy, and without the aid of explosive demolishion?

You keep arrguing that if there was thermite involved how come it extinguished itself, yet agree that the fires raged at 1,500 degrees for months. Pick one or the other!

A better stance would have been to argue the amount of thermite it would have taken to bring the towers down.

I found one bridge on Wikipedia as simple example. I thought that was suited to you. Cars are designed to be safe but people die in 5 mph collisions because of unexpected conditions. I didn't say that the towers were poorly engineered. Read the post, carefully.
As to your question, the correct version should be: "Care to provide proof of any other high rise steel framed building ever built totally collapsing in on itself from a fire AFTER BEING STRUCK BY HIGH SPEED JETLINERS? You can't because there haven't been any." It is true that there haven't been any other high rise, steel framed office buildings struck by airliners that have collapsed. The concept of a unique event eludes many who think that there is an example of every possible event. The disosaurs were no doubt surprised by their extinction, also.
No evidence of demoliTION was found.
The argument about Jones abysmal paper has to do with its self inconsistencies.
Heat sources that last for weeks are not the result of thermite. Underground fires are the only explanation.
Do you have evidence of 1500 degrees directly measured? Centigrade or Fahrenheit?

Originally posted by 54v!0r531f
reply to post by roboe

 

the beijing CCTV tower was built in 1992....

not after close scrutiny of 9/11.

I somewhat doubt it was built in 1992, given that the design wasn't completed until 2002.

www.oma.eu...

reply to post by airspoon


You are well verse with behind the scene politics. I give my respect to you for your research, its actually hard for everyone to see the thing about the pipeline and other thing you mentioned, because of other polluting conspiracies - topic disinformed/derailed/misdirected.

Done the service and still can see through this is what make you deserve the merit. I hope you can find few others that can shed some light us.

Note to others: Quit discussing about the building. Focus on first post points only shall we ? We can debate about it when the case re-open.

Why the Goverment doesnt want to re-open the investigation, yet happily sign 30billion more fund for military ?


[edit on 2-8-2010 by RainCloud]

They didn't collapse into their own footprint, and they were hit by planes.

If you can find me a building that's been hit by a plane of comparable size, at 400-500 mph, that hasn't fallen down I'll concede the point. Otherwise you must admit you're kind of in the same boat. Bereft of examples.

reply to post by airspoon


Agree!! I balked and resisted enlisting with my family practically dragging me ALL the way.....but once past the mind games of boot camp (yes I know they DO actually serve a purpose but SOOOO annoying to us with a brain still! lol )
I wouldn't have ever chosen NOT to join! Never got such intensesified yet MUCH more thorough training in my specialized fields with the best most up to date tools and seminars (I was Corpsman/ Operating Room Tech) and free of charge!! Even PAID to live off base ... heeheehee!! I'd never shared such comraderie and mutual respect in ANY of my prior careers (and they were many and diverse! lol ) I kick myself EVERY day for falling in "love" and leaving!!

Originally posted by mark-in-dallas in response to pteredine

* * * *

You keep arrguing that if there was thermite involved how come it extinguished itself, yet agree that the fires raged at 1,500 degrees for months. Pick one or the other!

* * * *

I was thinking about his insistence that if there was nano-thermite involved in the destruction of the towers on 9-11 that 100% of it would have been consumed in the thermite chemical reaction. But that's just another of his many straw men. He provides no evidence in support of this assertion. He is making the assertion. He has the burden of proof. He has providerd none. Why? Because it's no more than a disingenuous rhetorical device.

A 6th grader could figure that one out. With the speed and power of the collapse where multi-ton steel beams were flung a substantial distance horizontally away from the towers, and nearly everything else was reduced to small particles and dust, why would the combustion of many nano-thermite packs not have been interrupted? The thermite reaction requires an ignition source. If particles are flung away from the ignition source they are not consumed in the reaction, just as in the case of a common wood fire where, if a piece of wood rolls away from the burning mass, it doesn't ignite and is not consumed.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by dubiousone]

Originally posted by dubiousone With the speed of the collapse and multi-ton steel beams being flung a substantial distance horizontally away from the towers

Hang on - so you disagree with Mark?

He says they fell into their footprint, neatly. You don't concur?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by dubiousone With the speed of the collapse and multi-ton steel beams being flung a substantial distance horizontally away from the towers

Hang on - so you disagree with Mark?

He says they fell into their footprint, neatly. You don't concur?

Your invitation to engage in pointless and stupid bickering is declined.

No-one has ever asserted that every particle of the towers fell "neatly into their footprint". Did you not see the clouds of dust that were ejected sideways throughout the lower Manhattan area? Did you not see the damage to adjacent buildings? For the most part, the towers fell into their footprint rather neatly given the mass of matter involved, but not entirely.

Give the pointless bickering a rest, please. Engage your brain before posting.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by dubiousone]

Double post removed.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by dubiousone]

reply to post by dubiousone


So the towers fell neatly into their own footprints, apart from the big bits which didn't.

Okay.

reply to post by pteridine


I'm not going to bother arguinig with you any further. It's clear that you aren't willing to braoaden your horizons, and believe 100% that you are right, or are at least regurgitating the misinformation you were fed or told to feed others. Why bother?

So exactly which government disinformation agency do you work for?



[edit on 2-8-2010 by mark-in-dallas]

FEMA report contradicts NIST report
I noticed every pro OS poster just skips that little dilly.

OK, right there the OS is Toast
You can argue opinions all day but you can't get around the fact the OFFICIAL profesional investigators can't even agree.
this of course isn't even getting to the 6 out of 10 911 commissioers say investigation was a fraud

NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” of Knocking Down Tower

www.nowpublic.com...

The Report is illustrated with many colorful cartoon-like drawings, such as one explaining FEMA's postulated floor collapse mechanism. It seems crafted to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the Towers had no core structures

911research.wtc7.net...

NO CORE STRUCTURES !!!


In support of the premise of the OP
WE now return you to the regularly scheduled rampant speculation
being touted as proof that the OS is truthfully accurate.

carry on



pS
taliban askes for proof OBL did 911...
HEY!, remember atta's passport that turned out be a fraud?
like the incubator babies in Kuwait?


[edit on 2-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


FEMA - Preliminary Report
NIST - Final Report.

Do I really need to explain why they are different?

----

[edit on 2-8-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by mark-in-dallas

I'm not going to bother arguinig with you any further. It's clear that you aren't willing to braoaden your horizons, and believe 100% that you are right, or are at least regurgitating the misinformation you were fed or told to feed others. Why bother?

So exactly which government disinformation agency do you work for?

Yes pterdine, you must "broaden" your horizons - so broad that in fact they are large enough to hold, at the same time, to wholly and completely contradcitory concepts:

Concept A: The "smoking gun" that the world trade center collapse was a result of a controlled demolition is the "fact" that the remains of the building all fell neatly into a little pile, otherwise known as its "footprint".

Concept B: The "smoking gun" for controlled demolition is the fact that sections of the buildings superstructure are seen on video being flung out hither and yon from the collapsing building, proving they were subject to explosive force.

And he does not work for the agency, he is just a part time consultant.

reply to post by Danbones


You run into these problems because you think that there is such a thing as the OS - a big leather bound "Story of What Happened on 9/11" published by the government.

What there actually is, is a soup of different reports by media, alphabet agencies, and central and local government. Furthermore these have altered over time as more information has become available.

Finding inconsistencies in this morass of evidence isn't proof of a cover up. It just shows that you don't understand how analysis of something like 9/11 works. And that you are fundamentally biased in the first place.

reply to post by hooper
reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Look at what they made you give.

It hurts deep inside doesnt it ?



[edit on 2-8-2010 by RainCloud]