The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey · 17-05-2006 8:37pm

RedPlanet wrote:

Sorry i'd have to do more homework to provide that.
It's only my off-the-wall theory since i'm a nutcase conspiracy theorist right?

No, its your off-the-wall theory because by your own admission you'd have to actually do more research to see if it held water. I mean...seriously....its not a good sign when the first question asked of your reasoning prompts a response of "I'd need to check that up".

legologic wrote:

2005 the winchester building in madrid burns for 24 hours.

So well researched, you got the name wrong...eh?

'Salright...we know its an honest mistake.

Its the Windsor Tower in Madrid.

Interesting that you meniton it though. Have a read of this: http://911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

Whats that? The steel part of the building collapsed, while the concrete supports remained? Why, that could mean that if there was no concrete the whole thing would have probably collapsed. But I guess we'll both agree that this is an unfair presumption and its better to simply say its an inapplicable case.

Another honest mistake.

SpitfireIV · 17-05-2006 8:41pm

Bonkey, I think America needs you, seems there are many experts and scholars (sorry I dont have the exact numbers

), as well as a number of the public that have gotten the wrong idea and think there was some conspiracy behind 911

.

solas · 17-05-2006 8:45pm

lol, croppy boy, y'know bonkey is a politicians politician, it's their job to argue any point with conviction, doesn't mean they are right.

Untense · 17-05-2006 9:23pm

Manic Moran wrote:

Physics 101, as has already been explained in a previous thread. Please indicate to me the source of a force which would push the top of the building outwards, and not down.

Please bear in mind also that whilst the impact occured in one corner, the damage appears to have been spread around throughout the entire floor, witness the fireball emitting from all sides. Ergo, pretty much any part of the structure is vulnerable to being weakened by fire.

Wrong. Yes, the structures were an absolute marvel, actually they were designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 707's, which were the largest planes around at the time of the building of the Twin Towers. They were built to withhold against the possibility of multiple terrorist attacks using aircraft. The boeing 767 that hit were similar sized to the aircraft the building was capable of withstanding.

Interesting show on National Geographic channel last week, explaining how the unusual lattice cored structure of the WTC actually kept it up a lot longer than would have been expected of a conventionally designed skyscraper.

Yes but this wasn't a conventially designed skyscraper, it had 47 massive colums in the core, a design feature unique to the WTC's.

Frank d Martini was the chief engineer who designed the Towers, he reported that they were so resilient that an impact from an aircraft would be like
sticking a pencil in a mosquito net. The structure is an intense grid.

They are not mentioned in the 911 Commission Report, the 47 massive load-bearing columns in the center of the WTC's conveniently disappeared in the simulations used to make the Pancake Theory physically possible. Even if it were possible the cores should still have remained erect.

Instead the cores ended up getting cut up in to segments by an explosion, each segment roughly 30ft in length.

How convenient.

Tell me, why would the official US government explanation for the collapse of the WTC's purposefully omit the core load bearing features of the buildings?

Why do they fail to mention Tower number 7, a 47 story building, which was not hit by any planes and had neglible fires, and was the furthest building away from the Twin Towers.

Why did tower number 7 collapsed shortly after the other two towers in a similar, equally implausible way?

Did you even bother to research things for yourself before deciding you were right ?

civdef · 17-05-2006 9:27pm

Untense, honestly now, do you really truly think you have the inside track on this collapse that all the other structural/fire/architecture experts in the world have either missed or ignored?

17-05-2006 9:41pm

Untense wrote:

The boeing 767 that hit were similar sized to the aircraft the building was capable of withstanding.

They flew a few into other similar tall structures to test this under,in as near an exact copy of the twin towers crashes right?

Frank d Martini was the chief engineer who designed the Towers, he reported that they were so resilient that an impact from an aircraft would be like
sticking a pencil in a mosquito net. The structure is an intense grid.

Ah yes,he had the confidence of the bulders and sailors of the titanic then.
Good man I admire confidence.

Untense · 17-05-2006 9:49pm

civdef wrote:

Untense, honestly now, do you really truly think you have the inside track on this collapse that all the other structural/fire/architecture experts in the world have either missed or ignored?

All the experts in the world ? You mean the people behind the 911 commission? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Commission

Do you actually believe that just because the US release a report, that the worlds 'experts' wrote it ?

Do you not want to think for yourself?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm sure there are a growing number of experts in every field starting to come forward with their doubts. I thought exactly the same as everyone else until I started to do some research on the matter.

EDIT:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

There's another link for you to dismiss and huff about.

Dirk Gently · 17-05-2006 9:52pm

Any chance of this thread being closed seen as it has descended into one of the many similar threads on boards.

We've all seen the video, no sign of a plane, nothings changed. same people believe the official story same people think something else happened. Seen as there has being no new evidence either way the reason for this thread to exist has evaporated on viewing the dodgy video released yesterday.

Let the slagging match continue on another forum in one of the many other threads dedicated to slagging matches on this topic.

Untense · 17-05-2006 9:55pm

Happily.

I had to stand my case since people were passing me off as a 'nutjob'.

Finito

Dirk Gently · 17-05-2006 10:07pm

Untense wrote:

Happily.

I had to stand my case since people were passing me off as a 'nutjob'.

Finito

Understood,
but the video was announced, we speculated, we waited, we watched it and no new evidence came to light on viewing the video.

I have a lot of time for the alternative versions on 9/11 considering the official report is so lacking, but I feel there is enough threads in conspiracy theories and after hours to discuss these.

No new evidence has come from the video so this ends the necessity for this particular thread. No point in having different forums if everyone is used to discuss 9/11.
Maybe ask the admins for your own forum which is strictly related to all things to do with 9/11?

civdef · 17-05-2006 10:26pm

Do you not want to think for yourself?

It seems that unlike the conspiracy theorists here, I'm actually qualified to comment on some of the techinical issues here. This leads me to believe I've done more thinking on this subject for myself than people who are just repeating what they find on conspiracy websites.

I'm sure there are a growing number of experts in every field starting to come forward with their doubts. I thought exactly the same as everyone else until I started to do some research on the matter.

You being "sure" doesn't cut it I'm afraid, I haven't heard ANY credence given to the conspiracy theories by reputable professionals in relevant fields.

EDIT:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

There's another link for you to dismiss and huff about.

Seems to be a distinct lack of structural engineeers, fire engineers or architects on that list - I counted one before I got bored looking at the long list of artsy type qualifications. I'm sure Professors of English and ethics and similar disciplines are very worthy individuals, but I wouldn't go asking them to advise me about structural fire engineering.

Manic Moran · 18-05-2006 1:58am

OK. Here's a compromise site.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

It argues that the steel did not melt, and even goes as far as to argue that the steel was not softened sufficiently to weaken the structure sufficiently for it to collapse on its own.

However, it also claims that the cause of the collapse was the impact and resulting fire.

Be warned: Lots of technical jargon and figures.

Frank d Martini was the chief engineer who designed the Towers

Here's me thinking it was Minoru Yamasaki who was the architect who came up with the design. Mr DeMartini was a manager, not a designer.

NTM

Hobbes · 18-05-2006 8:16am

You do know a lot of this crap being released, the speech on illegal immigrants, etc is to distract from the fact that Bushes ratings are in the toilet.

MeatProduct · 18-05-2006 12:24pm

The only definite end result that all this has is to create polarity among us, not that we need any more. Here we are discussing who killed who and why and kind of missing the bigger picture.

Nick

bonkey · 18-05-2006 2:53pm

Untense wrote:

Wrong. Yes, the structures were an absolute marvel, actually they were designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 707's

No, they weren't. Moer correctly, the Port Authority may have claimed that they were, but the person who reportedly carried out the calculations has said that this is not what he did. Not only that, but there is conveniently no copy to be found anywhere of the calculations. This last fact alone should be enough to undermine any claim by those favouring an alternate version of events, given that lack of corroborating evidence is one of the basic flaws they level at some claims in the official version.

Regarding the impact-resilience of the crash, I'd refer you to [url=]here[/url] which tries to clarify what the truth behind the allegations are.

There is evidence to show that calculations were done on the finalised design to see if it would withstand an impact from a low-on-fuel airplane, lost in fog, travelling at close-to-stall speeds.

There are allegations the calculations were for high-speed (600 kph) rather than low-speed collisions, but no-one credible has come forward making the claim that you just did (multiple terrorist attack collisions).

Yes but this wasn't a conventially designed skyscraper, it had 47 massive colums in the core, a design feature unique to the WTC's.

Unique, eh? So that would mean that its incomparable to any other building? So you'd presumably agree that all of these "but building X was hit by a plane / burned" comparisons are invalid, given that the structure of the WTC towers was unique. Glad we've established that.

Even if it were possible the cores should still have remained erect.

Nope, they shouldn't.

The load-bearing columns were assembled piecemeal - with sections added as the building climbed. Each new section was merely tack-welded into place to hold it in place until it was properly secured by building the basic structure that it was intended to support. Indeed, the sections only gained their load-bearing capability once put under load (much like the Hoover Dam - being a gravity dam - relies on the water pushing it against its buttresses to make it a functioning dam).

To suggest that tehse columns would remain standing after the building collapsed around them is like suggesting that its no big feat to stack 20 or 30 pencils on top of each other, using nothing more than a microdot of blu-tac between each to hold them in place.

In short, its a ridiculous notion.

Instead the cores ended up getting cut up in to segments by an explosion, each segment roughly 30ft in length.

Actually, what are believed to be the original comments never specified that it was the cores...just that it was the "steel beams and columns".

You'll also note, should you check the reference, that there's no corroborating evidence, so yet again we have the well-established pattern of criticising official version for lack of evidence, and proposing alternates with an equal lack of evidence.

Furthermore, the outside body of the WTC was comprised of steel columns which were between 12 and 38 feet, so one would expect a fair amount of clean-ended 30-ish foot beams to be found.

How convenient.

Just what I was thinking about your claims with lack of evidence.

Why do they fail to mention Tower number 7, a 47 story building, which was not hit by any planes and had neglible fires, and was the furthest building away from the Twin Towers.

Because its being seperately investigated, and that report is still not finalised?
How sinister...them not reporting on it while they were still investigating.

Did you even bother to research things for yourself before deciding you were right ?

Are all the inaccuracies in your claims are just honest mistakes? Or maybe you actually knew all the stuff you've been corrected on and were...what...testing us to see whether we'd spot it or not?

Regardless, it would once again seem that people who believe something sinister went on are holding themselves and their theories to a lower standard than they demand of those who disagree with them. Why is it ok for you to offer a jumbled mix of fact, fantasy and unsupoprted supposition, but not for anyone who disagrees with you?

jc

weeder · 18-05-2006 3:09pm

i would like to add my opinion to this

in my opinion this is the same video released a few years ago only a higher resolution and in the first one that was 4 frames of video it shows whatever it was but in this it showsthe nose of the plane so it is in my opinion take the 4 frames from the original video and 4 from this one and you can see the nose then the next frame being the origianl picutr of whatever it was but too grainy too see
anyone who thinks this is a fake conspiracy i suggest you looking into other plane crashes and the mess they make as in the second or third layer there is a perfectly roud hole about 1/4 the size of a 757

bonkey · 18-05-2006 3:14pm

solas wrote:

lol, croppy boy, y'know bonkey is a politicians politician, it's their job to argue any point with conviction, doesn't mean they are right.

It might be easdy to dismiss what I'm doing as just that, but to do so would be to fundamentally misconstrue the argument I'm making.

My basic objection is that people favouring alternate theories are frequently displaying that they do not hold themselves to the same standards to those supporting the official version, do not hold their theories to the same standard as the official version, do not demand the same quality of proof from their evidence as they do to the evidence supporting the official version, do not accept expert or eyewitness testimony thats supporting the official story, but insist that evidence that supports their theory must be correct because its from eyewittnesses / experts.

Whilst engaging in all of this double-standardry, they typically denigrate those who would disagree with them of the very faults that they themselves all-too-frequently display.

This is what I am arguing, and quite frankly there's no question but that I'm right.

(aside: I could just as easily do the same to many of those who insist the official version is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but they generally don't go starting / taking over threads to insist that what was reported is true. And frankly, they're not as much fun to wind up).

Funnily enough, most people who support an alterante version of events won't see my criticism as being directed at improving teh argument they put forward (though in effect, thats what it is), but will prefer to see me as some sort of opposition for whatever reason they decide. Much as you've done here

Personally, I take that as confirmation of my stance. Proper, critical analysis of what I've posted would show that my objection is to weak, misleading, incorrectly-researched arguments and/or explanations which are held to a lower standard than those that have been rejected as being of too low a standard in some way. If someone can't actually see that, then I wouls suggest that its their critical thinking which is at fault - which is exactly what I've been alledging all along. They will instead see what it is they want or choose to see - not what is there. This doesn't bode well in supporting whatever line of argument it is that they wish me to consider.

jc

bonkey · 18-05-2006 3:17pm

weeder wrote:

in my opinion this is the same video released a few years ago only a higher resolution and in the first one that was 4 frames of video

This isn't a matter of opinion.

The 4 frames leaked a few years ago prompted a FoI request for the full tape, which was reufsed. The case was subsequently brought to court, and what with one thing and another, the tape in question was released earlier this week.

So yes. Its more of the same tape. Thats what its supposed to be.

jc

SpitfireIV · 18-05-2006 4:33pm

bonkey wrote:

My basic objection is that people favouring alternate theories are frequently displaying that they do not hold themselves to the same standards to those supporting the official version, do not hold their theories to the same standard as the official version, do not demand the same quality of proof from their evidence as they do to the evidence supporting the official version, do not accept expert or eyewitness testimony thats supporting the official story, but insist that evidence that supports their theory must be correct because its from eyewittnesses / experts.

Bonkey, I'm learning a lot here over the past few days, you sure are standing you're ground and doing so very well, but can I put a question to you?

Do you not agree that for every case stating that the twin towers fell as a reult of the crash/fire/gravity, there is equally as many cases that state the towers fell as a result of something more sinister? Which are equally backed up with there own research (which must be complete bonkers

) Why is this the case, if it was so simple then why cant everyone agree on what happened? I doubth its a case of trying to find a scape goat and find someone responsible for ignoring the treats and letting it happen, if that be the case the goverment would be there main target, not the actual sequence of events, ie, the mechanics behind the crash/fall/destruction.

There are just as many 'experts' in various fields that are not happy with the 911 commision as there are that are satisfied with the findings, if there werent we wouldnt still be hearing about it and the case would be put to rest.

No matter what is said here, be it for or against a conspiracy theory no one can say for certain what happened, you cant, no matter what research you have, beliefs or experience, you can speculate and believe what you want to believe but I doubth anyone here is that intelligent to have, alone, found the holy grail of 9-11, as earlier stated, I'd think that for every case for, there is a well grounded case against.

Heres an article that I thought was interesting, it sort of sits on the fence, and takes both sides into account, lots of qualified name titles in there:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/rodgwtcpdf.pdf

Cheers,

CroppyBoy1798

Kersh · 18-05-2006 4:45pm

I still havent decided on the 911 conspiracy theories yet.
While I do believe The US are hiding some facts, I dont think its a mass cover up.
But I have only 1 question......
If a video appeared tomorrow of a 757 flying into the pentagon, would the conspiracy theories be put to bed??? Would any doubter on this thread just put there hand up and say 'well d'ya know what, I believe it was a terrorist attack' ??

SpitfireIV · 18-05-2006 4:49pm

Kersh wrote:

But I have only 1 question......
If a video appeared tomorrow of a 757 flying into the pentagon, would the conspiracy theories be put to bed??? Would any doubter on this thread just put there hand up and say 'well d'ya know what, I believe it was a terrorist attack' ??

Kersh, if such a tape were released I think there would be millions satisfied, not just conspiracy theorists. That is all it would take, simple as that, proper footage of a plane hitting the building. It'd sure as hell satisfy me to see it too.

Kersh · 18-05-2006 4:51pm

Hmm, me too, theres weight on both sides. Almost headwrecking..:rolleyes:

civdef · 18-05-2006 4:57pm

There are just as many 'experts' in various fields that are not happy with the 911 commision as there are that are satisfied with the findings, if there werent we wouldnt still be hearing about it and the case would be put to rest.

This just isnt the case. The overwhelming consensus among professionals in relevant fields across the word is that the offical reports have it right. The voices behind the conspiracy theories aren't just aren't credible. Putting up a website, making some claims backed up with some red lines on photos, and cross referenced with other conspiracy sites does not make someone an expert. Neither does a qualification in an irrelevant field.

weeder · 18-05-2006 5:05pm

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php tho its about 3 years old its the best video on it ive seen

http://www.geocities.com/pentalawn2000/

solas · 18-05-2006 5:59pm

bonkey wrote:

Funnily enough, most people who support an alterante version of events won't see my criticism as being directed at improving teh argument they put forward (though in effect, thats what it is), but will prefer to see me as some sort of opposition for whatever reason they decide. Much as you've done here

I think I already stated my position on the issue. I'm not entirely interested in the affair, I'm more conerned about the way it is being used as a mask to cover up more important issues.
The suggestion of you being a politicians politician was a reference to the fact that the topic was being covered in politics as oppose to a general discussion forum where debate is not seriously engaged in on a regular basis.

bonkey · 18-05-2006 6:35pm

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

Kersh, if such a tape were released I think there would be millions satisfied, not just conspiracy theorists. That is all it would take, simple as that, proper footage of a plane hitting the building. It'd sure as hell satisfy me to see it too.

Should such a tape ever be released, I can literally guarantee that within a month (and probably within 24 hours) someone on the web will have a detailed analysis of why its a fake.

Within another few weeks, there will be some experts adding credibility to it.

Should this also happen, would you not immediately be suspicious that it took about 5 years to release this tape, which is more than enough time to do a really good fake.

You'd be so easily swayed?

Do you not agree that for every case stating that the twin towers fell as a reult of the crash/fire/gravity, there is equally as many cases that state the towers fell as a result of something more sinister?

I'd say there's far more cases implying something sinister....but note that I'm not commenting on the credibility of either here.

Which are equally backed up with there own research (which must be complete bonkers )

Some of its not bonkers at all. Some of its based on very sound theory, come of it less so, and some of it is downright dishonest.

The important point is that its simply not enough to allege that explosives were used. Thats like saying "a plane crashed into the towers" and not needing to explain where the plane came from, who flew it, why they crashed, and so on and so forth.

Why is this the case, if it was so simple then why cant everyone agree on what happened?

There are precious few areas of science where everyone can agree unanimously.

(By the way, if you take your argument that I'm replying to thus far, and apply it to Hollow Earth theories, it would also apply. Do you think this makes a compelling case for the earth being hollow?)

As to the individuals themselves, I think there's no single factor. Some want to find suspicious behaviour. Some are exploiting the situation for gain (books, dvds etc.) Some are basing valid opinions on incorrect information.

People in large numbers rarely agree unanimously.

A big deal is made of differeing eyewitness testimony, but I always think of a German show I saw recently where a car crash was staged for two groups of unsuspecting test-subjects. One was a group of regular people (in their twenties, I think), and the other were all police on street/traffic duty. The crash involved a sequence of events, so it sure wasn't a blink-and-you-miss-it. Recall in both groups was statistically similar, and averaged somewhere around 60% accuracy. As far as I am aware, this is a typical accuracy-of-recall average for any given group in any given situation.

So is it unusual that people have differing recall? No. Does it mean that credence should be given to every word that suggests something sinister? No. Would one expect to find sentences from interviews a large number of witnesses that can be construed to imply a different sequence of events. Of course.

Will some people attempt to read something into these comments? Almost every time.
Will they always be wrong? Of course not, but generally they will be.

So do I rule out the possibility that something unusual / sinister happened? No, I don't, but I'd need to hear a pretty compelling case to believe its more than highly unlikely, bordering on impossible.

Have I heard a compelling case? Not in the slightest. Sure, there are some really good questions being asked....but there is also a huge amount of misdirection and/or incomplete research being done alongside...and with any so-called conspiracy theory we find ourselves - in reality - left with more questions, more (relatively) unfounded speculation, and more holes than what we started with.

I fully accept that there are some apparently strange irregularities. I don't question that there are some really serious unanswered questions. However, I don't believe for a second that anyone has put together any sort of a credible scenario as a replacement....but they always try. I've seen very few, if any, people saying "here's why the official version cannot be correct, so here's what questions it raises, and I haven't a clue what the answers are but sure would like to find out". You just (almost) never see it. It always gets a followup of "But here's what I think happened", and if you notice that's generally the part I'm saying hasn't been made as a case when I'm not simply challenging the alleged facts the claim rests on in the first case.

There are just as many 'experts' in various fields that are not happy with the 911 commision as there are that are satisfied with the findings,

Are there? I mean...really...you're actually suggesting you've checked the comparative numbers, are you? You're just using a figure of speech to mean "there's a heck of a lot", right?

I'm skeptical, because its an age-old argument, usually used by the side with the weaker case.

Consider that a pilot said that you can't pull a turn with the 757 the way he was asked about, cause it would stall. This argument is presented as expert testimony / proof explaining why it couldn't have been a 757. What it doesn't address is whether or not the details of the turn alleged to have been made are correct. What are they based on? Where did they come from? Were they what were presented to him when he made his comments? Was it a case of selective editing, and the guy maybe said you couldn't do it safely, and the plane would stall half the time? I ask this because there's been no shortage of analysis of conspiracy claims showing that such selective editing has taken place.

No matter what is said here, be it for or against a conspiracy theory no one can say for certain what happened, you cant,

But you'll notice I don't try. I'm saying the arguments about what else might have happened are weak, and should be even more unacceptable than the official story were they to be judged on an equal basis.

as earlier stated, I'd think that for every case for, there is a well grounded case against.

Actually, you left out the well-grounded bit earlier...which is why I agreed with it. I don't believe many of the alternatives are well-grounded, and when you stop taking them in isolation and rather judge them as a full series of events (again, consistent to how the official version is judged) then I believe they are far from well-grounded.

To be honest, the more that partake in discussions like this, the more I get the feeling that I'm being almost used as a research tool. Someone throws a handful of allegations, and when some/all of them are called sufficiently into doubt (or thoroughly refuted as can sometimes happen), instead of being told "hmmm, maybe I should reevaluate the stuff I believed to be true some more before continuing", I get "Aha! Here's another fistful of allegations. Take that you dastardly fiend. Answer those!" I mean...come on...such a tactic is hard to take as anything more than trying to drown out the opposition to claim victory, not actually make a case.

So on that note...I'll bow out. I'm done. Score another victory for the good guys, there's one less voice telling you you're wrong.

If I wanted to be conspiracist about it, I'd suggest that I'm being lured into such discussions by viral marketing. The busier the thread, the more often stuff like Loose Change gets mentioned (sure, you can view a low-res version online, but if you really wanna see the detail, I guess you'll buy the DVD, right?) . So maybe by bowing out I'm helping to foil the viral marketers' evil plots

jc

oscarBravo · 18-05-2006 8:12pm

bonkey wrote:

What it doesn't address is whether or not the details of the turn alleged to have been made are correct. What are they based on? Where did they come from?

I asked that question earlier. I'd still like to know.

RedPlanet · 19-05-2006 10:18am

Insofar as "experts" questioning the official explanation of the towers collapse, i find this guy's paper quite good: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
But I'm not a physics guru.
The problem about molten steel is that while we have some witnesses that claim to have seen pools of molten metal, and molten steel; "we" members of the public never had access to the site to see for ourselves.
It was under lock-down by the Feds.
So it's a little dishonest of the other side of the debate to place the entire onus of proof on "us" because the public has been denied access.
Take for example the video stills this very thread is about.
They are practically useless in terms of evidence.
Yet its taken years for these sh*tty images to be seen by the public.
Like i said earlier, who released the 5 stills before? And why did they edit some out.
The people whom "leaked" it evidently had the ability to edit out frames to begin with. So i wonder what else has been edited and what point is there to edit any frames at all?
How do we know there isn't a missing frame that shows a nice broadside image of whatever struck the Pentagon?
Why should we trust these sources in the Pentagon when they have such history of nefarious activity?
That tape should be independently verified at a minimum.

Human behavior is a funny thing.

From the AH thread i posted a story about this guy at work.
--copy and paste--
I was having a 911 debate with one of the guys at work, an Architech. And he told me that at DIT (i think) one of his professors (Stuctural Engineering no doubt) gave a "very lengthy and detailed explanation" of how and why the 2 towers collapsed (early pancake theory). Anyway i listened to him but then he said the key words, quoting this professor...."the exo-skeleton was the main structural component of the building".
I knew this to be 100% false, and so i showed him just 2 internet pictures of the towers under construction: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
**edit: gotta scroll down about 2/3 the page to see the pics i'm onabout
As any laymen can plainly see, the main structural component is the core, not the flimsly exo-skeleton!
That pretty well silenced my workmate (we have structural engineers on-hand and they all agree about it)
So basically this professor at DIT was full of SH*Te and didn't bother to do the most cursory exploration of the issue
--

Begs the question, why was this Structural Engineering lecturer so eager and ready and willing to give a big shpeel reguritating the early Pancake Theory when he didn't even look at the evidence in front of him that easily rubbishes the claim that the exoskelten was the main structual component of the towers?
I dont think he was "in on the conspiracy", no. I think it's more banal than that. He's just a tool, and doesn't question "authority".

civdef · 19-05-2006 11:23am

Physics lecturers are not experts on building design, or how they behave in fire. I'm a fire engineer, and I'm crap at quantum mechanics and astronomy. Different disiplines.

As any laymen can plainly see, the main structural component is the core, not the flimsly exo-skeleton!

Hmm, layman impressions based on a picture aside, how about producing something to back that assertion up?

(we have structural engineers on-hand and they all agree about it)

Indeed, that's funny, you appear to be acquainted with a very peculiar band of structural engineers so.

Begs the question, why was this Structural Engineering lecturer so eager and ready and willing to give a big shpeel reguritating the early Pancake Theory when he didn't even look at the evidence in front of him that easily rubbishes the claim that the exoskelten was the main structual component of the towers?
I dont think he was "in on the conspiracy", no. I think it's more banal than that. He's just a tool, and doesn't question "authority".

There's definitely a tool involved here somewhere allright, I just suspect its not the person you think it is.

RedPlanet · 19-05-2006 11:40am

Well mister civdef.
Ironic that name since you are not so civil in your manners.
I linked to the photo's of the trade towers under construction if you were so bothered as to click on the link and scroll down about 2/3 the way.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the internal structural core is the primary supporting component of that building.
In fact it's a no-brainer.
I've got more than 1 Structual Engineer in my place of work and they all seem to agree that the exoskeleton is not the primary support of those buildings.

But since you appear to claim that the exoskelten IS the primary supporting component, why dont YOU produce evidence?

civdef · 19-05-2006 11:41am

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://wtc.nist.gov
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20III%20-%20Baseline%20Final.pdf

civdef · 19-05-2006 11:42am

Above are some links to help. The perimeter tube (correct name for the exoskeleton design) indeed wasn't the primary support, but it played a major part, see above for details.

RedPlanet · 19-05-2006 11:47am

civdef wrote:

Above are some links to help. The perimeter tube (correct name for the exoskeleton design) indeed wasn't the primary support, but it played a major part, see above for details.

It was designed to provide support for horizontal load civdef.
So afterall, now you're willing to concede?

Sure sounds like it.

civdef · 19-05-2006 11:49am

Eh no, do you know what role horizontal load plays in supporting a building?(here's a hint: buckling).

civdef · 19-05-2006 11:50am

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

Excellent description of structure second page in.

RedPlanet · 19-05-2006 11:51am

civdef wrote:

Eh no, do you know what role horizontal load plays in supporting a building?(here's a hint: buckling).

So are you back to saying that the primary supporting component in that building design is the thin permeter columns and NOT the core?

civdef · 19-05-2006 11:56am

Sheesh, using small words:

Core takes vertical load, perimeter horizontal. Perimeter keeps core from buckling outwards. Without the perimeter providing horizontal restraint, core colums buckle outwards and building comes down. You're not thinking in terms of three dimenstional loadings. The last link I posted has pictures and everything.

RedPlanet · 19-05-2006 12:04pm

I see a depiction of the Pancake Theory which was debunked for 2 reasons:
1- the outer permetre requires buckling outward for the floor to pancake on teh next one below. However no buckling is observable in vidoes of the towers just before the collapse.

2- the fires on the N. tower didn't engulf the entirety of the floor area since the plane just hit the corner, so the fire wasn't evenly spaced throughout the floor.

But why am i even bothering, all this is off topic for this thread and should be posted elsewhere.
This thread is about the Pentagon video.

civdef · 19-05-2006 12:08pm

However no buckling is observable in vidoes of the towers just before the collapse.

Why's it have to be outward? Inward buckling of the perimeter is clearly visible in pictures. Videos aren't going to show in what direction the cores buckled.

{quote]This thread is about the Pentagon video.[/quote]
It started out that way but seems to have evolved along the way. From an engineering perspective, WTC is much more interesting anyway.

What do you reckon happened to WTC and the Pentagon by the way?

tunaman · 19-05-2006 6:53pm

civdef wrote:

What do you reckon happened to WTC and the Pentagon by the way?

Many people are now asking questions as the newly released video was supposed to proof beyond doubt that flight 77 hit the pentagon, when it's obvious it does nothing of the sort.

When the government produces it as absolute proof then there is a real problem. We basically have to take their word for it as that object in the video could be anything. I and many others believe that a plane did hit the pentagon, just not flight 77, as the pilot according to people he flew with said this...

"However, when Baxter (Sheri Baxter, flight instructor) and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons."

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html

Has anybody had a proper look just who was on flight 77 that day?

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/passengers.html

This flight was full of men with years of experience in the military and navy, so I find it very hard to believe they just sat back and let 5 skinny arabs armed with just boxcutters hijack the plane...

Commercial Pilot and Aeronautical Engineer Explains Why Official 9/11 Story About Pentagon Is Bogus

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/6-Dec-2005.html

Besides calling attention to the impossibility of a untrained pilot performing complex flight maneuvers and navigation, Sagadevan said the flight path taken near the Pentagon was also impossible for a large jetliner to perform without crashing before reaching the Pentagon.

Sagadevan was quick to point out one of the main problems with the government story is the low trajectory of the airplane, flying at high speeds and roughly only 20 feet off the ground for a long distance, another impossibility defying the standard principles of aviation.

The evidence indicates that the airplane was flying low before it reached the Pentagon lawn since several light poles were sheared off several hundred yards away form the building,? explained Sagadevan. ?With that in mind, the plane was traveling at about 400 knots at about 20 feet off the ground for a long distance prior to hitting the Pentagon.

This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been kept from hitting the ground by a cushion of air termed 'ground effect.' No pilot in the world would have been able to control the plane while maintained that air speed at 20 feet off the ground for that long a distance. Again, it?s just impossible but here I will admit that an expert is needed in order to explain the standards of lift and drag associated with flying a large airliner.

He also mentioned the what's also overlooked is the 'jet wash' from the airplane would have caused tremendous ground damage on the approach, something not evident in the aftermath of the Pentagon crash.

As you can see there are many problems with the official pentagon story, but in reality that is nothing compared to the evidence supporting the demolition job on the WTC and building 7.

The eyewitness accounts of large explosions in the lower levels of the WTC are numerous, and as they don't contradict each other(see pentagon) then they cannot be ignored or brushed off as mere confusion. Neither can this explosives expert...

EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS, NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center
suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both
towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to
be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on
national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse
of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions
used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on
a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the
Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president
for administration and finance, were en route to an office
building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded
research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

< ROMERO SAID THAT IF HIS SCENARIO
IS CORRECT, THE DIVERSIONARY ATTACK
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COLLISION OF
THE PLANES INTO THE TOWERS >

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had
NOT been asked to take part in the investigation into the
attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations
into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar
explosions and studying the effects.

oscarBravo · 19-05-2006 7:43pm

My reply here is from the perspective of someone with 24-odd hours of flight experience including one solo flight, and a keen interest in the theoretical and practical aspects of aviation. I've also passed all six private pilot exams.

tunaman wrote:

I and many others believe that a plane did hit the pentagon, just not flight 77...

So where is that plane, its passengers and crew?

tunaman wrote:

This flight was full of men with years of experience in the military and navy, so I find it very hard to believe they just sat back and let 5 skinny arabs armed with just boxcutters hijack the plane...

More accurately, armed with boxcutters and hostages they were perfectly prepared to kill.

tunaman wrote:

Besides calling attention to the impossibility of a untrained pilot performing complex flight maneuvers and navigation...

It's not that difficult to fly a plane. The hard part is landing it safely, and that wasn't a concern in this case.

tunaman wrote:

...Sagadevan said the flight path taken near the Pentagon was also impossible for a large jetliner to perform without crashing before reaching the Pentagon.

How does he know for certain what flight path was taken?

tunaman wrote:

Sagadevan was quick to point out one of the main problems with the government story is the low trajectory of the airplane, flying at high speeds and roughly only 20 feet off the ground for a long distance, another impossibility defying the standard principles of aviation.

There's nothing in the principles of aviation that says it's impossible to fly 20 feet off the ground at high speed. It's almost impossible to do it safely, but - again - that's not an issue here.

tunaman wrote:

The evidence indicates that the airplane was flying low before it reached the Pentagon lawn since several light poles were sheared off several hundred yards away form the building,? explained Sagadevan. ?With that in mind, the plane was traveling at about 400 knots at about 20 feet off the ground for a long distance prior to hitting the Pentagon.

This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been kept from hitting the ground by a cushion of air termed 'ground effect.'

Bull. If you think ground effect will magically keep an airplane off the ground, try this thought experiment: imagine you've got a plane relatively stable in ground effect at high speed. Then you shove the yoke hard forward.

What do you suppose will happen?

tunaman wrote:

No pilot in the world would have been able to control the plane while maintained that air speed at 20 feet off the ground for that long a distance.

"That long a distance" being the several hundred yards you mentioned earlier? 400mph is practically 200 yards per second. Even if we're talking about a thousand yards, we're only talking about five seconds of flight. Also, we're not talking about control, we're talking about crashing into a building.

tunaman wrote:

He also mentioned the what's also overlooked is the 'jet wash' from the airplane would have caused tremendous ground damage on the approach, something not evident in the aftermath of the Pentagon crash.

Jet wash doesn't cause tremendous damage, as evidenced by the lack of tangled wreckage at the ends of airport runways the world over.

tunaman wrote:

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said.

So a small amount of explosive could have caused the towers to collapse, but an impact from a fully fueld jetliner and subsequent inferno couldn't?

tunaman · 19-05-2006 8:30pm

Most people know who David Shayler is, right?

Well for those who don't he was an MI5 agent who was brave enough to speak the truth and look what happned to him...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/shayler/welcome.htm

He obviously knows plenty about what goes on behind the scenes, and here is what he said about 9/11...

London has bombed itself before
Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions

Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.

David Shayler joined MI5 in October 1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in January 1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. He left the organization in 1996.

Shayler appeared on The Alex Jones Show to kick off what will be a wider public campaign to educate the public on 9/11 issues and government corruption.

Shayler again risked jail by speaking out. The British government has a legal gag preventing him from speaking about his work during his MI5 tenure. Since what Shayler discussed was already on the public record (a consequence of which was his imprisonment on two separate occasions), he now feels safer in stepping back out into the limelight.

Shayler delved into his past investigations and the evidence that led some within MI5 to conclude that the Israelis bombed their own London embassy in July 1994. Shayler said that the Israelis framed two Palestinians who remain in jail to this day.

"The same thing has happened with two Palestinians who were convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Britain in 1994 but MI5 didn't disclose two documents which indicated their innocence. One document indicated another group had carried out the attack and the other document was the belief of an MI5 officer that the Israelis had actually bombed their own embassy and allowed a controlled explosion to try and get better security and these documents were never shown to the trial judge let alone the defense."

Shayler said that his suspicions were first aroused about 9/11 when the usual route of crime scene investigation was impeded when the debris was immediately seized and shipped off to China.

"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people that it was Al-Qaeda."

Shayler then went on to dismiss the incompetence theory.

"The more I look at it, you realize that it's not incompetence. There were FBI officers all over the country, Colleen Rowley is obviously the one who managed to get a congressional hearing, but there was plenty of evidence certainly."

"There are so many questions that need to be answered, protocols being overridden within national defense, people actively being stopped from carrying out investigations. This wasn't an accident, they were aware there was intelligence indicating those kind of attacks, there were FBI intercepts saying it in the days before the attacks. When you look at it all, that is a big big intelligence picture and yet these people were crucially stopped from doing their jobs, stopped from trying to protect the American people."

Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law.

"So you're looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup de'tat because you've got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn't take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup de'tat, a violent coup de'tat."

"There are so very many questions about this and you realize again that none of the enquiries ever get to the bottom of any of these things, they don't take all the evidence, they don't often take any evidence under oath when they should be taking it under oath."

Shayler was forthright in his assertion that the attack was planned and executed within the jurisdiction of the military-industrial complex.

"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they're trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."

Shayler ended by questioning the highly suspicious nature of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, the first buildings in history, all in the same day, to collapse from so-called fire damage alone.

"I've seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."

Here is a short video of him questioning what really happened on 9/11...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974&q=shayler

Part 2:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2953150409490347185&q=shayler

19-05-2006 8:38pm

He left in 1996!What would he know about 9/11?

easy_as_easy · 19-05-2006 9:07pm

im sure he is talking through his years of experience dealing with terrorists and bombings

arbeitsscheuer · 19-05-2006 9:15pm

Hmmm. What he says does dovetail quite adequately with what some very reasonable outspoken critics have already said about the inconsistencies of the "Official" version of events.

I think he makes some good points, but that's just me.

homah_7ft · 19-05-2006 9:16pm

Maybe he didn't see the evidence of a couple of passenger planes loaded with jet kerosine crashing into the buildings.

DublinWriter · 19-05-2006 9:30pm

I've seen David Shayler speak a number of times and he always comes over as a weirdo and kook.

If that is the calabre of what MI6 have been recruiting, then God help the British Intelligence Services.

I have a theory about him still being in the pay of MI6 and and his whole 'speaking out' routine being an active misinformation campaign on the part of MI6.

Considering how hard the UK government went after Peter Wright (author of Spycatcher), and how they let Shalyer guest-speak his way around the chat-show circuit, maybe I'm not being so paranoid after all.

Squaddy · 19-05-2006 9:37pm

Take a luk at my upload to see what it would have looked like. This isnt the real video so dont get confused.

oscarBravo · 19-05-2006 9:45pm

Squaddy wrote:

Take a luk at my upload to see what it would have looked like. This isnt the real video so dont get confused.

It's perfectly obvious it's not the real video. The real video has approximately one frame per second. As I mentioned above, an airliner travelling at full speed would travel around two hundred yards per second - about three times its own length. That's why I imagine the plane isn't visible in the published video. Your mock-up shows a plane travelling at maybe 75 feet per second.

You'll have to do better.

Dirk Gently · 19-05-2006 9:49pm

Squaddy wrote:

Take a luk at my upload to see what it would have looked like. This isnt the real video so dont get confused.

is that an accurate scientific recreation of what it should have looked like taking into account all factors including speed of the plane and speed, quality and location of the camera.

If it is can you link me to the site so I can have a look at their calculations. Kind of hoping this is a propper scientificly made video and not what someone wishes it would look like. Would certainly pose questions,unless its all bollix of course.

The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Comments