# General > General >  WTC7 again.

## fred

I was just wondering what the 9/11 sceptics made of the new footage which has surfaced of a BBC reporter describing the collapse of WTC7 in a live broadcast at 4:57pm EST when the building didn't collapse till 5:20pm EST and with WTC7 clearly still visible behind her.

----------


## scotsboy

Excuse my ignorance Fred, but someone who is not that familiar with the NYC skyline (although Ive been there a couple fo times) cannot deduce much from this. I watched the report (all 7 mins 15 secs of it) and there were no times quoted or shown on the screen so I cant ascertain when they are meant to be saying anything fell. They also refer to the Sallaman Brothers building (??) Is that WTC7?
For a mere mortal like myself, I must admit to finding the footage boring in the extreme and hardly worthy of watching.

----------


## fred

> Excuse my ignorance Fred, but someone who is not that familiar with the NYC skyline (although Ive been there a couple fo times) cannot deduce much from this. I watched the report (all 7 mins 15 secs of it) and there were no times quoted or shown on the screen so I cant ascertain when they are meant to be saying anything fell. They also refer to the Sallaman Brothers building (??) Is that WTC7?
> For a mere mortal like myself, I must admit to finding the footage boring in the extreme and hardly worthy of watching.


Yes the Sallaman Brothers building was WTC7.

When she moves aside the big oblong building with a few puffs of smoke rising from it right behind the ruins of the two towers is WTC7. If the transmission hadn't been conveniently lost it would have collapsed in around 10 minutes.

The time is taken from the timestamp of the original mpeg which is available if you want to check it for yourself, it's more than a one gig download though,   it covers from 4:54 PM to 5:36 PM.

----------


## Moby

Apologies now if this has been posted before - attached is a link to a film which highlights some of the "conspiracy theories" regarding 911.  It is one and a half hours long but boy I was transfixed!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...e+change+recut

----------


## Rheghead

> I was just wondering what the 9/11 sceptics made of the new footage which has surfaced of a BBC reporter describing the collapse of WTC7 in a live broadcast at 4:57pm EST when the building didn't collapse till 5:20pm EST and with WTC7 clearly still visible behind her.


Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.  

1.  The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.

2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.

3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.

4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11. 

Could this be a facsimile of real events? ::

----------


## golach

Been counting the days now in anticipation of Fred and his self thinking cronies bringing this back to the fore front.
Thanks Fred, I think I can now go into hibernation safely, with no need for any sedative.
Yawnnnn its working already ::

----------


## squidge

I would think the clock is wrong ::

----------


## fred

> I would think the clock is wrong


I don't think the clock matters. The reporter is clearly describing the collapse of the building when the building was clearly visible in the background behind her. The only way that could happen is if someone somewhere knew for definite that that building was going to collapse.

It's like the two business men talking and one says "sorry to hear about your warehouse burning down" and the other one says "Shhhh...that's next week".

----------


## PhilR

> 3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.


BBC World is, and has been for years, the BBC TV news service available abroad on satellite. Watched by many an expat and holidaymaker alike!

----------


## fred

> Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.  
> 
> 1.  The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
> 
> 2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
> 
> 3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
> 
> 4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11. 
> ...


A conspiracy you mean?

----------


## MadPict

All of this 9/11 bunkum was poo pooed the other week on the conspiracy programme on the TV. 

All explained away but still the conspiracy theorists refuse to believe the facts - they are so desparate for a hidden government plot to explain 9/11.




> *Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?*
> 
> In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes.
> 
> The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, its collapse was barely reported.
> 
> WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others.
> 
> Sceptics of the official account, including those at Scholars for 9/11 Truth argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.
> ...


That kid (Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change) who made the film looked a little lost for words as the reporter put some salient points to him about his allegations of conspiracy. Guess holes in his theory are starting to appear.

And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......

----------


## darkman

> All of this 9/11 bunkum was poo pooed the other week on the conspiracy programme on the TV. 
> 
> All explained away but still the conspiracy theorists refuse to believe the facts - they are so desparate for a hidden government plot to explain 9/11.
> 
> 
> 
> That kid (Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change) who made the film looked a little lost for words as the reporter put some salient points to him about his allegations of conspiracy. Guess holes in his theory are starting to appear.
> 
> And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......


Too many holes in the official speil to be adequately 'explained away'.
There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.

----------


## MadPict

So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........  ..

----------


## darkman

> So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........  ..


Exactly where in my statement did I suggest such a thing, Mmmm, nowhere.
The hahaha's are pretty imature by the way.
There is no doubt that money was made on the back of that tragedy, strong evidence suggests that wtc7 was pulled and the situation used to the advantage of larry silverstien.

----------


## fred

> And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......


Just wondered if someone could explain to me how the BBC could report that something had happened 20 minutes before it happened that's all.

----------


## fred

> So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........  ..


No, a small but powerful section of the US government allowed 3000 of it's own citizens to be slaughtered so that America could take control of the Middle East and form a Global American Empire, "Pax Americana" they called it when they were planning it in the 1990s. Some rich tycoons with very close connections to those people took advantage of the situation to make a lot of money.

----------


## Rheghead

Could the confusion over the time be on account that BBC World might be using EST instead of British Summer time? ::  Or something like that??

----------


## MadPict

> Exactly where in my statement did I suggest such a thing, Mmmm, nowhere.


Mmmmm, maybe here:



> There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.


No doubt whatsoever? Where do you get that degree of certainty from? 





> The hahaha's are pretty imature by the way.


No more or less immature than the mindset of the conspiracy theorists...





> here is no doubt that money was made on the back of that tragedy, strong evidence suggests that wtc7 was pulled and the situation used to the advantage of larry silverstien.


Strong evidence WTC 7 was pulled? 
You mean this evidence?



> *The Collapse of World Trade Center 7*
> 
> *Allegation:*  9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished.  The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds.  Mr. Silverstein said:
> 
> I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire.  I said, you know, We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.  And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
> 
> 9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silversteins suggestion to pull it is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
> 
> *Facts:*  On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
> ...


Just as every court has a jester, every circus a clown, every village an idiot it is reasonable to expect that every forum has it's conspiracy theorist(s)....

----------


## jimbews

> Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.  
> 
> 1.  The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
> 
> 2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
> 
> 3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
> 
> 4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11. 
> ...


Yes, BBC World is the international BBC on satellite as someone else has said.

Then consider how the likes of the weather forecast is transmitted:
The presenter is not in front of the forecast - you will often have seen them outside. They are just superimposed electronically.
You could even do it on a PC with the likes of Ulead's Visual Studio 10 program, which costs about 50 quid.

JimBews

----------


## chimo

> Just wondered if someone could explain to me how the BBC could report that something had happened 20 minutes before it happened that's all.


Is the presenter standing in front of a window, or is she in front of a blue screen with footage being played behind her?  The obvious explanation would be that the footage shown is delayed...maybe because the BBC didnt want anything being shown live as happened when the 2nd tower was hit.  As another poster mentioned, the BBC Conspiracy programme answered a lot of the questions the some people seem to have about the events of that day.

----------


## Kaishowing

> A conspiracy you mean?


If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.
I'm not saying if the clip is genuine or not, just that the days of 'the camera never lies' are far far behind us.

'Conspiracy' sounds so sinister, the definition from the dictionary is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons....where as hoax has a definition of: something intended to deceive or defraud. 
Both words mean the same thing in broad terms, but each conjours up a very different image in the mind.

It's tough for conspiracy theorists not to go to town over 9/11 though, after the US authorities gave them so much ammunition by handling the entire episode with such incompetence. Add to that George W Gump as president, and you have theories coming from everyone and their brother!

Mind you, when you still have people claiming that 95 years ago the sinking of the Titanic was an elaborate conspiracy, then you realise that any distaster will have people willing to read far more into events than that's actually there.

Even supposing the theorists are correct.....have ANY of these major events ever been *proven* to be true conspiracy's?
I'm not talking about the joke stuff like the alien autopsy or Hitler's diaries, or even The Piltdown Man....But any of the BIG events??

Given the greedy nature of the global media at the moment, I would have thought that any scrap of REAL proof that would increase readership or boost ratings on TV would have been beamed around the world by now.

The best two at giving the public new possibilities to think about in recent years has to be Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. 
Pehaps that's the good things about conspiracy theorists...They make us look at things in a different way, even if only to point out how wrong we think they are. :Smile:

----------


## MadPict

> Quite uncalled for I would've thought... especially from a moderator?


roy,
Here we go again - the old (and tired) issue of "you're not allowed to post because you have the word Moderator under your name" raises it's head again.
Last time I looked I was still a member of these forums and therefore free to post within the forum rules. 
If I see a post which breaks forum rules or needs moderating then I will put my Mod hat on and deal.

I am entitled to my opinion and I will continue to post that opinion to whichever thread I wish. Be it adding to the thread about chloramine or the proliferation of wind farms. I have as much right to contribute to the discussion of topics as you or fred or anyone. 
As long as I don't directly insult or abuse a member I cannot see the problem with my posts - I was the one being called "imature"(sic)...

----------


## Rheghead

On the video, the Empire state building is on the left and in the background and the highlighted building that we are led to believe is WTC7 is on the centre right but closer to the camera than the Empire state building.  This makes me think that the clip was shot to the south of Ground zero.  The smoke is clearly blowing in front of the ESB and behind the highlighted building.

However, all news reels that I have seen show the smoke blowing in a south easterly direction rather than the clip's westerly direction.  Plus the smoke plume is much thicker and bigger on other footage than on this clip.  

Also, is it me but can I see the stumps of two buildings to the left of the highlighted building?

----------


## fred

> If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.


Well the hoax would have to involve a lot of people, the firm who owns the archive server that the footage has been sitting on would have to be involved, then the people who found the footage and the people who authenticated it and verified the timestamp. Starting to sound like a conspiracy to me.

----------


## golach

Mad Pict,
I go along with your theory, more than the conspiracy theory of Fred and his cronies.
And keep posting MP, you have every right to express your sensible opinions (no matter if you are a Moderator), as well as the IMO crackpots in here 


*The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation:* 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silversteins suggestion to pull it is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

*Facts:* On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. Mr. McQuillan has stated that by it, Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition, in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NISTs working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage. There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

----------


## MadPict

Thanks Golach - I fully intend to keep posting.

BTW if you are interested (and for anyone else who feels the CTs are spouting twaddle) the WTC7 quote came from here -
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

----------


## fred

> Is the presenter standing in front of a window, or is she in front of a blue screen with footage being played behind her?  The obvious explanation would be that the footage shown is delayed...maybe because the BBC didnt want anything being shown live as happened when the 2nd tower was hit.  As another poster mentioned, the BBC Conspiracy programme answered a lot of the questions the some people seem to have about the events of that day.


You mean they cherry picked a few of the wilder theories they could disprove and implied therefore all theories other than the official one are wrong.

Forget all the alterative theories, they don't matter, I just keep asking how the official explanation can possibly be true, it defies all logic, no one has explained any of the points I've raised. The speed and symetry of the collapse of the buildings, where the energy came from to melt steel and eject steel girders horizontally, where the energy came from to pulverise concrete.Now where the time machine came from for the BBC to know 20 minutes in advance not only that the building would collapse but how and why, the exact same story that would be the result of the official investigation years later.

You can watch the footage, you can hear the presenter saying how much time had elapsed since the initial attack, you can see the link mysteriously fade just before the building actually did collapse and now we find that the BBCs own archive footage of the event has mysteriously vanished, how convenient.

----------


## chimo

> You mean they cherry picked a few of the wilder theories they could disprove and implied therefore all theories other than the official one are wrong.
> 
> Forget all the alterative theories, they don't matter, I just keep asking how the official explanation can possibly be true, it defies all logic, no one has explained any of the points I've raised. The speed and symetry of the collapse of the buildings, where the energy came from to melt steel and eject steel girders horizontally, where the energy came from to pulverise concrete.Now where the time machine came from for the BBC to know 20 minutes in advance not only that the building would collapse but how and why, the exact same story that would be the result of the official investigation years later.
> 
> You can watch the footage, you can hear the presenter saying how much time had elapsed since the initial attack, you can see the link mysteriously fade just before the building actually did collapse and now we find that the BBCs own archive footage of the event has mysteriously vanished, how convenient.


The programme didnt cherry pick anything, it went over a lot of different aspects and looked at it from different sides.

The building collapsed because 2 planes with lots of Jet fuel crashed into them; I dont see why that is so hard to believe.  A lot of things can not be proved by theory, and I am sure no tests were ever carried out on 100 plus story buildings with planes crashing into them. 

Almost all of the ideas that have been thrown up by conspiracy theorists seem to have be easily explained, and the only come back the theorists have is 'but it could'nt have happened like that, it just could'nt'.

----------


## golach

Dont hold your breath folks....but whats the betting that in the next few of Fred's posts, he will say its all a Zionist plot, to get us to attack Iraq, I eagerly awaiting his defence of Iran and that contries Nuclear saber rattling

----------


## Rheghead

> I cannot believe this. Now you are up to it too. The post above is nothing more than trolling. You've contributed nothing to this thread except a pat on Madpicts heid and now you are insulting Fred? Unbelieveable.


I suppose insulting our intelligence is OK then?

----------


## MadPict

> there is no reason to be insulting, especially here as a moderator of this forum.


Again that line.

I used the term "fredthread" in a lighthearted, affectionate way.

Am I not allowed to change my mind?

Now you're calling me a troll? Another insult...




> ...of which *all* were insulting and aimed at provoking other members which are trying to conversate about the topic of the thread.


All? Total untruth - you show me where I have actually insulted or provoked anyone trying to "conversate"(sic) on this topic?

Conversate? That's not a real word.... ::

----------


## Kaishowing

> .......and I am sure no tests were ever carried out on 100 plus story buildings with planes crashing into them.


Actually, following an aircraft hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, any new building was designed with this in mind. Couple that with the fact that the Twin Towers were also built to withstand heavy winds gusts at such altitudes, then you begin to see why alot of people just don't accept how they could fall so quickly.

----------


## chimo

> Actually, following an aircraft hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, any new building was designed with this in mind. Couple that with the fact that the Twin Towers were also built to withstand heavy winds gusts at such altitudes, then you begin to see why alot of people just don't accept how they could fall so quickly.


The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it?  I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say

----------


## Kaishowing

> The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it?  I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say


Of course...but don't you think that the test requirements evolved along with aircraft design? As the passenger jet was a common aircraft during the Twin Tower construction, the building design took that into account.
(incidentally it was 767's that hit the buildings)
Check it out yourself - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

----------


## MadPict

I wonder if that building indicated with an arrow as stillstanding is actually the building on Murray/W Broadway?

I have tried to indicate some buildings on this Google Map...

----------


## Kaishowing

> This is my main problem. Yes, two large planes with full fuel tanks hit the buildings movin' out at a good speed. Obviously going to be some major damage. But, on the day I was shocked at the time between them getting hit and them collapsing. How long was it under an hour or thereabouts? I also don't see how it is possible they came straight down as they did. Each got hit from the side, that would make one think one side of the building was weaker than the other, surely, we would expect a partial collapse or topple effect?


Thats what shocked me too. They way they fell looked almost exactly like a controlled demolition of any building in a built up area....I would have expected whole city blocks surrounding the area to be destroyed, but it was quite surgical in effect.
I could accept one tower falling like that perhaps, just for the sake of freak luck, but both?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there are still questions about the tower's collapse that haven't been answered yet.

----------


## changilass

Daft question here:


Would it be possible that they were designed to collapse straight down in order to avoid damaging other buildings close by in the event of something going wrong.

Don't all jump down my throat, its just an idea

----------


## webmannie

Simple answer to this

The BBC have regular 'training' sessions for their presenters, using old news stories which they then have to cover as if it is 'live'. That is why the 'tone' is different and that it is not 'well known' presenters doing it.

----------


## changilass

The simple answers are always the best

----------


## squidge

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I find these sorts of reports interesting too

----------


## MadPict

Roy,
Thanks. If you look at the profile of the building in the BBC "report" you will note it has a stepped structure on the roof. If you then look at the aerial shot of the building on Murray/W Broadway you will notice it has a roof top structure also which appears to cover as much roof space. I therefore suggest that the two buildings are one and the same.

Note: The satellite image is skewed due to the pass over the area being staggered, not becuase the buildings are leaning....

----------


## MadPict

Changilass,
The building collapsed as it did due to the floors below giving way under the weight of the collapsing floors above them. 
This also accounts for the theory that "explosions" were seen (as puffs of 'smoke') below the segment which was collapsing. It was the force of the pressure wave created by the floors above falling actually ejecting debris out of the side of the building.

Several compacted floors and their contents are stored in a building - the remains are about 8 feet thick....

But then the building rigged with explosives sounds so much more intriguing....

----------


## fred

> The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it?  I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say


The towers were designed to whithstand the impact of the largest passenger plane around at the time which would be comprable to a 737.

----------


## fred

> The programme didnt cherry pick anything, it went over a lot of different aspects and looked at it from different sides.


OK then, where did enough heat come from to melt steel girders?

----------


## fred

> I cannot believe this. Now you are up to it too. The post above is nothing more than trolling. You've contributed nothing to this thread except a pat on Madpicts heid and now you are insulting Fred? Unbelieveable.


Yes roy, that is how the clique works, they gang up and sling insults, you'll find your name appearing on other threads as well as they do their best to discredit you because they have no facts to argue with.

----------


## fred

> I suppose insulting our intelligence is OK then?


Use your inteligence. Look at the facts carefully, don't start with the assumption that the Government of America just wouldn't do a thing like that and then set out to prove it, look at the evidence and see what it is telling you.

----------


## chimo

> OK then, where did enough heat come from to melt steel girders?


The flames from the plane full of fuel crashing into the building.  The steel didnt have to melt either; it lost a lot of it's integrity at a far 'cooler' heat than is needed to melt steel, and this caused the girders to buckle and collapse with the weight of the floors above them.

----------


## MadPict

And there is another unfounded allegation, the word "clique", used by a very small minority (the CT Clique?). just because some orgers think the same they are accused of being in the clique!

When they are on the back foot they always pull that word out of their lexicon. There is no clique. Unless it is in your mind....

----------


## MadPict

Why didn't the sprinkler system in WTC 7 extinguish the fires?

The water mains system had been damaged by the collapse of WTC1/2 resulting in the cutting off of the sprinkler system. 

"Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power.  The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7."

----------


## j4bberw0ck

Personally, I'd prefer to know why, if the "mass media" were pre-briefed in some way, or had a badly timed conspiracy-ridden release to work from, they didn't fasten on the much bigger story of WHY they were being briefed on something that hadn't happened?

And why, if it duly happened a few minutes later, they didn't run stories on why they'd been pre-briefed on the collapse?

5.5 years seems a long time for clued up journos to spot something that obvious - and the BBC's anti-Bush credentials would have had them crawling over over a story like that in nothing flat.

Just another hoax.

----------


## fred

> The flames from the plane full of fuel crashing into the building.  The steel didnt have to melt either; it lost a lot of it's integrity at a far 'cooler' heat than is needed to melt steel, and this caused the girders to buckle and collapse with the weight of the floors above them.


Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough the melt steel and would have burnt off in a few minutes most of it outside the building. If you know some way of melting steel with an ordinary fire let me know and iron foundaries can get rid of their blast furnaces.

The steel may not have needed to melt but it certainly did melt, many tons of it. There is video footage of white hot molten steel pouring out of one of the buildings and they were diging out huge lumps of red hot steel from the rubble weeks later.

----------


## fred

> And there is another unfounded allegation, the word "clique", used by a very small minority (the CT Clique?). just because some orgers think the same they are accused of being in the clique!
> 
> When they are on the back foot they always pull that word out of their lexicon. There is no clique. Unless it is in your mind....


Once again the evidence proves you wrong, yours and Golachs attempts at intimidation are there for all to see.

----------


## fred

> Personally, I'd prefer to know why, if the "mass media" were pre-briefed in some way, or had a badly timed conspiracy-ridden release to work from, they didn't fasten on the much bigger story of WHY they were being briefed on something that hadn't happened?


I haven't seen anyone saying that that happened.

Looks to me like the BBC were just innocently reporting what they had been told, the reports come in from the news services and the reporter reads them.

----------


## MadPict

> Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough the melt steel and would have burnt off in a few minutes most of it outside the building. If you know some way of melting steel with an ordinary fire let me know and iron foundaries can get rid of their blast furnaces.
> 
> The steel may not have needed to melt but it certainly did melt, many tons of it. There is video footage of white hot molten steel pouring out of one of the buildings and they were diging out huge lumps of red hot steel from the rubble weeks later.


So what are you saying fred? The steel did melt or it didn't?

----------


## fred

> So what are you saying fred? The steel did melt or it didn't?


There is no doubt a lot of steel melted.

I'm asking what caused it to melt, the heat from the aviation fuel and fires in the building were nowhere near hot enough.

----------


## changilass

So what would be hot enough???

----------


## canuck

Wow, a few hours ago I discovered that this thread had been resurrected.  I remember when Scorrie threatened to make us read it if we lost the quiz one Sunday months back.   Well I broke all land speed records (for me anyway) from Inverness to get to Wick to log on and find out what the fuss was all about.

Hi everyone.  I am here in Caithness on your time zone.   And it is still not yet dinner time back in Canada.

----------


## fred

> So what would be hot enough???


A carbon fire with forced oxygen would be hot enough, something blowing air into the fire would make it hot enough like the bellows on a blacksmith's forge make the coal burn hot enough to melt the iron.

Or a non carbon fire, something like thermite which is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium and burns at a very high temperature, a form of it is used by army demolition teams to cut through steel girders.

----------


## golach

Are we going over this AGAIN??????


http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...d+trade+centre

http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...ght=conspiracy
If so why?

----------


## canuck

> Are we going over this AGAIN??????
> 
> 
> http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...d+trade+centre
> 
> 
> If so why?


Maybe the pros discovered some more conspired information.

----------


## fred

> If so why?


You are going through it again because you keep clicking on a thread you obviously have no interest in.

----------


## MadPict

Like the repeats on the TV Golach - every year they roll them out for a new audience.

Canuck,
This is a completely new rehash of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories....

----------


## Rheghead

> A carbon fire with forced oxygen would be hot enough, something blowing air into the fire would make it hot enough like the bellows on a blacksmith's forge make the coal burn hot enough to melt the iron.


So you are a steelworks chemist now eh?

Hmm, iron age man was able to melt iron with just a few bits of woods, gosh I never knew that aviation fuel with a 1300ft high wind behinfd it wasn't sufficient to melt steel! ::

----------


## j4bberw0ck

> Hi everyone.  I am here in Caithness on your time zone.   And it is still not yet dinner time back in Canada.


Well, canuck, if no one else has the manners to return your greeting, I shall.  Even if I'm not in Caithness - welcome back to Eastpondia  ::  .  Hope the jetlag's working out OK.  Cheers!  J

----------


## darkman

> Mmmmm, maybe here:
> 
> There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.


Taken totally out of context, something dodgy doesn't translate as the american government slaughtering 3000 of it's own citizens.
They do have a track record for abusing their own citizens, mkultra springs to mind.

----------


## fred

> So you are a steelworks chemist now eh?
> 
> Hmm, iron age man was able to melt iron with just a few bits of woods, gosh I never knew that aviation fuel with a 1300ft high wind behinfd it wasn't sufficient to melt steel!


As I have already pointed out most of the fuel from the planes burnt off in seconds in a huge fireball, mostly outside the buildings.

Iron age man didn't melt iron, they produced iron by a chemical process, they heated iron oxide with charcoal in an enclosed place and the carbon monoxide produced reduced the iron oxide to pure iron which they then wraught.

----------


## MadPict

> A carbon fire with forced oxygen would be hot enough, something blowing air into the fire would make it hot enough like the bellows on a blacksmith's forge make the coal burn hot enough to melt the iron.
> 
> Or a non carbon fire, something like thermite which is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium and burns at a very high temperature, a form of it is used by army demolition teams to cut through steel girders.


Debunking The 9/11 Myths......



> *"Melted" Steel*
> *CLAIM:* _"We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."_
> 
> *FACT:* Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
> 
> "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
> 
> But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
> 
> ...

----------


## Rheghead

> As I have already pointed out most of the fuel from the planes burnt off in seconds in a huge fireball, mostly outside the buildings.
> 
> Iron age man didn't melt iron, they produced iron by a chemical process, they heated iron oxide with charcoal in an enclosed place and the carbon monoxide produced reduced the iron oxide to pure iron which they then wraught.


How do you know that 'most' of the fuel burnt in seconds mostly outside the building?

So at no point the iron was in a low viscous form then?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Iron age man didn't melt iron, they produced iron by a chemical process.


Yeah, just like your thermite... ::

----------


## cliffhbuber

As one who watched the whole sordid and sad affair of the towers on 9/11, and did extensive research after, I must say that most fuel burned inside the buildings burning off the insulation of the steel cross beams, which softened and gave way causing the collapse from the top....
The perimeter vertical structure of the towers was the main support; not the same in the middle of the towers.
It would seem that 'new' videos are the works of image superimposers, an easy technical task these days, and one commonly used by the news 'rags'.
The BBC World we get in Canada has some good programming, particualarly with hard-hitting interviews of political figures.
BBC, in general, has a reputation lately of fudging the news the last few years with a particular slant.

----------


## fred

> Debunking The 9/11 Myths......


But where did all the molten steel come from? You just post a passage from some web site pretending it answers the question when it doesn't. Saying "the steel didn't need to melt" doesn't alter the fact that the steel *did* melt and it doesn't explain how it happened.

----------


## scotsboy

Does it (steel) normally melt under controlled demolition conditions?

----------


## fred

> As one who watched the whole sordid and sad affair of the towers on 9/11, and did extensive research after, I must say that most fuel burned inside the buildings burning off the insulation of the steel cross beams, which softened and gave way causing the collapse from the top....
> The perimeter vertical structure of the towers was the main support; not the same in the middle of the towers.
> It would seem that 'new' videos are the works of image superimposers, an easy technical task these days, and one commonly used by the news 'rags'.
> The BBC World we get in Canada has some good programming, particualarly with hard-hitting interviews of political figures.
> BBC, in general, has a reputation lately of fudging the news the last few years with a particular slant.


Which still doesn't answer the question "where did the heat come from to melt steel?". There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?

----------


## scotsboy

> Which still doesn't answer the question "where did the heat come from to melt steel?". There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?


........................Heat

----------


## j4bberw0ck

> Taken totally out of context, something dodgy doesn't translate as the american government slaughtering 3000 of it's own citizens.
> They do have a track record for abusing their own citizens, mkultra springs to mind.


D'ohhhhh......it gets worse........ you allege abuse of citizens and cite MK ULTRA as evidence.  MK ULTRA involved feeding a few people LSD.  9/11 includes killing 3000+ in a deliberate act of murder involving hi-jacked aircraft.

And you see a link?  And it's evidence that the US authorities could have planned this?  Executed it?  Against their own people? 

If that's true then the fact that the British have Porton Down and a servicemen died in a nerve gas test in the Fifties, is prima facie evidence of a plot within the British Government to do something similar to 9/11........ OMG.... they did it of course!  It was 7/7!  A government plot! And I didn't realise......

Darkman, you are a political genius!  Thank you, oh thank you for showing me the light, darkman!

Hang on..... Darkman... the light? D'ohhhhh my brain hurts.....  ::  ::

----------


## j4bberw0ck

> There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?


Fred, what says that it's steel?

----------


## darkman

> D'ohhhhh......it gets worse........ you allege abuse of citizens and cite MK ULTRA as evidence.  MK ULTRA involved feeding a few people LSD.  9/11 includes killing 3000+ in a deliberate act of murder involving hi-jacked aircraft.
> 
> And you see a link?  And it's evidence that the US authorities could have planned this?  Executed it?  Against their own people? 
> 
> If that's true then the fact that the British have Porton Down and a servicemen died in a nerve gas test in the Fifties, is prima facie evidence of a plot within the British Government to do something similar to 9/11........ OMG.... they did it of course!  It was 7/7!  A government plot! And I didn't realise......
> 
> Darkman, you are a political genius!  Thank you, oh thank you for showing me the light, darkman!
> 
> Hang on..... Darkman... the light? D'ohhhhh my brain hurts.....


*Never*!!!, at any time did I say the american government planned and carried out the atrocities on 9/11, let's get that one straight and maybe you will engage your brain before you start spouting your sarcasm at someone else, not a very nice quality in a person.
The example I used is just that, an example of how governments can experiment with no regard for their citizens so don't tell me that someone using 9/11 as the perfect excuse to make lots of money is beyond the realms of possibility, It would be very _naive_.

----------


## fred

> Fred, what says that it's steel?


What else did you think it might be?

----------


## fred

> *Never*!!!, at any time did I say the american government planned and carried out the atrocities on 9/11, let's get that one straight and maybe you will engage your brain before you start spouting your sarcasm at someone else, not a very nice quality in a person.


That's how the clique works darkman, that's all they do, trying to have a sensible debate with them is like swimming in treacle.

----------


## darkman

> That's how the clique works darkman, that's all they do, trying to have a sensible debate with them is like swimming in treacle.


So it seems fred, ignorance is a very endearing quality to some governments. ::

----------


## MadPict

> There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?


HOW do you know that is steel? There is ±124,500lbs of 737 in that building. That could be the aircraft metal components/fuselage melting. It could be aluminium in the building melting (ventilation ducts, fixtures and fittings).

Have you tested the molten 'metal' which poured out? HOW do you know for certain that is steel? Are you able to deduce purely from a shaky video shot from 100's of yards away from your countless years experience as a metal worker that there is molten steel in that flow?

No, didn't think so.......


BTW J4bberw0ck, your Clique membership certificate is in the post....

----------


## j4bberw0ck

Thanks, MadPict - the aluminium alloy from the plane is exactly what I'm getting at.  The video was taken not long after the plane impacted, by the look of it, since there's only one area of damage to the building.  As to "white hot" - maybe, maybe not; but isn't oxidation (a heat releasing reaction, if I remember right) as hot / molten metal hits a high speed stream of air outside the building a credible explanation?

As for my Clique certificate, I'll enjoy it; thank you.  I mistrust politicians and the people behind them who influence and cajole as much as the next man, and more than most, but I'm forced time and time again to looking at this whole thing on a "balance of probabilities" basis - what evidence is there that insurance money or being able to declare war on <_insert Arab or Muslim country of choice_> led a clique of the US power structure to kill 3000 people?

Haven't these people ever heard of doing something simply?  Like inventing WMD, which I concede with some sadness as evidence of the stupidity of government?

_ Hansen's Razor: don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity._

Darkman, apologies if I caused offence but your point, in isolation, made no sense at all.  Context, however, makes it look as though you did indeed mean exactly what you said. All governments have a track record of some sort when it comes to abusing their members of their populations, even those models of cosy "liberalism" and good will, the Swedes and the Canadians.

Since I'm not privy to your thought processes, context is all there is to make a judgement, which I did.  And if you're NOT saying it was a deliberate act, what are you saying?

You appear to be accusing me of naivete when you're happy to conclude that:

- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that insurance money wasn't the motive for 9/11.

Hmmmmm....... following the logic, we could equally say:

- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that a secret clique of hygienists, wanting to use the heat from the fires to kill all the nasty bugs and bacteria in the WTC, wasn't the motive for 9/11.

Wow.  Must Google that one!  ::

----------


## darkman

> You appear to be accusing me of naivete when you're happy to conclude that:
> 
> - over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
> - therefore it's naive to suppose that insurance money wasn't the motive for 9/11.


I believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat, I did not say that insurance money was the reason for 911.




> Hmmmmm....... following the logic, we could equally say:
> 
> - over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
> - therefore it's naive to suppose that a secret clique of hygienists, wanting to use the heat from the fires to kill all the nasty bugs and bacteria in the WTC, wasn't the motive for 9/11.


Fools logic and sarcasm seem to sit very well with you. ::

----------


## MadPict

> ...we do not have enough information about the fire and/or explosions to make an educated assumption about what melted at what temperature and so on. There is no way for you to know the insulation was burned off except for an hour long Discovery channel documentary based on one sided hypotheses that said it did. All we really have is eyewitness accounts & a few samples of the molten steel as remember, they dragged away all the evidence before anyone could investigate it properly. Precisely why we do not even see an entire paragraph devoted to what happened to WTC7 in the Commission Report.


So structural engineers explanations that if the insulation is dislodged it severely impacts on the ability of the steel girders to resist fire is all hogwash?

The scenario of a fully laden jet airliner actually crashing into a skyscraper had never happened before. The last time a plane flew into a building in NY it was 1945 and that was a B25 bomber returning from the UK. 
Since then it has always been a worse case scenario for designers and engineers.

Maybe WTC7 did not feature in the 9/11 Commision because no-one died in that collapse and it was not actually hit by the two aircraft?

The term "pull" seems to have caught on amongst the CT brigade - it was explained that the word "pull" was used to mean withdraw the Firefighters from WTC7 - not to pull the building down. 

Pull them out?

And why would Silverstein, who as far as I am aware is not in the demolition business, use a term which is alleged to be used only in the demolition business? Perhaps this billionaire moonlights as a powder monkey for a demolition company?

All grist to the CT mill I expect..... ::

----------


## j4bberw0ck

Tell you what, darkman; since




> Fools logic and sarcasm seem to sit very well with you.


can you explain why you




> ... believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat


as opposed to the view that it fell down because of consequential damage?

Seems to me to be an almost perfect example of sophism, but I'm always happy to be shown how I've got it wrong.

Sarcasm, by the way, is a recognised tool of debate, especially useful in highlighting the ludicrous; but if you're upset by it, I'll bear that in mind.  As for fool's logic, it's not me who said the building was pulled down for the insurance.  I thought it fell down because the other two towers fell down and caused damage.  But as I said, I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways.

(I have this picture in my mind of Fred Dibnah sitting on the pile of rubble that was the WTC, flask of coffee in hand, watching with satisfaction as the fire he built in a big hole in the wall of Tower 7 eats inexorably into that big 10"x10" timber he cunningly propped up the front of the building with.....).  It's at least as likely as people running round setting fires and bombs while the whole area was crawling with emergency services.

----------


## Rheghead

I have just been reading an eyewitness account from the Fire Chief and he said that WTC7 was on fire for quite sometime before it collapsed around 5pm.  They could not fight the fire because of the lack of water so they decided to let it burn to the ground so they 'pulled' their firemen away from WTC7 to deal with other situations that they could deal with.

If it was blown up then why was it on fire? ::  Oh, I know, it must have been incendiary devices eh? ::

----------


## darkman

> [j4bberw0ck can you explain why you believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat as opposed to the view that it fell down because of consequential damage?
> 
> Seems to me to be an almost perfect example of sophism, but I'm always happy to be shown how I've got it wrong.
> 
> Sarcasm, by the way, is a recognised tool of debate, especially useful in highlighting the ludicrous; but if you're upset by it, I'll bear that in mind.  As for fool's logic, it's not me who said the building was pulled down for the insurance.  I thought it fell down because the other two towers fell down and caused damage.  But as I said, I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways.
> 
> (I have this picture in my mind of Fred Dibnah sitting on the pile of rubble that was the WTC, flask of coffee in hand, watching with satisfaction as the fire he built in a big hole in the wall of Tower 7 eats inexorably into that big 10"x10" timber he cunningly propped up the front of the building with.....).  It's at least as likely as people running round setting fires and bombs while the whole area was crawling with emergency services.


Sarcasm is hardly an apt tool for debate, if you disagree with something someone has said then debate with your own reasoning why my argument is implausible or ludicrous, 'they wouldn't do that' just doesn't cut it.
You second scenario had a very tenuous link with sophism to say the least but let's not get into your use of rhetoric.
Have you ever heard of a fire before 911 that has ever caused a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse. 
There were obviously extreme circumstances involving wtc1 & 2 but wtc7 is a different case altogether, it was not hit by an aircraft and there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:

Silverstein said: 


> "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."


Doesn't seem like an order to pull firefighters out, does it?




> 1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and *burned for more than 6 hours.*


Didn't collapse.




> The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and *burned for more than 17 hours.* Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.


Didn't collapse.




> Well, considering it would've been the first steel framed building to ever collapse from fire alone I would've thought every structural engineer in the world would've wanted a thorough investigation?


Exactly.

----------


## Rheghead

> there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:
> 
> Didn't collapse.
> 
> Didn't collapse.


As I said, the Chief of Fire on the ground said WTC7 was engulfed in flames and was on fire for quite some time before it collapsed.  They let it burn to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

----------


## MadPict

What buildings in Glasgow rise to the same heights as WTC or were constructed in EXACTLY the same way? 
What was the height of this building in Glasgow?
Did they use 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel?
Did they fly a 737 into the core of this building?
Did they weaken the building in a way to simulate impact by a jet aircraft travelling at 300mph and weighing 125,000lbs?
Was the grade of steel used the same as in the WTC?

If the answer to just one of those is "no" then you cannot use the professor's research to try and add to your argument.


Ahh, another You Tube entry.....

A voice off screen, answering a phone, says "Hello, we're getting ready to pull building 6" - so that could not have been edited into the clip? If someone wants to help these conspiracy theories by editing existing footage whats to stop them?.........

Those desperate to expose the US government as mass murderers will twist the media to make the story fit their warped theories.

----------


## darkman

> As I said, the Chief of Fire on the ground said WTC7 was engulfed in flames and was on fire for quite some time before it collapsed.  They let it burn to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.


There were lots of photographs taken over the period of time between the damage to wtc7 and it's collapse and none show evidence of fires severe enough to cause this worlds first.

----------


## MadPict

> it was not hit by an aircraft and there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:


No, but it was hit by debris from the collapsing WTC which caused a huge hole  to appear in the side of the building facing the WTC...



> "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.


Most of the footage shown on YouTube or elsewhere is of the north side of the building...

...probably because no-one could film or photograph the side which had been hit.

Unless the demolition teams were creeping in that way....

Just noticed my Join Date - Sep 2001 - perhaps I am part of the conspiracy? Muahahahahaaa

----------


## Rheghead

> There were lots of photographs taken over the period of time between the damage to wtc7 and it's collapse and none show evidence of fires severe enough to cause this worlds first.


I am sure that I could find angle shots of the WTC1 and WTC2 during the time that they were on fire which would show to my eyes that both didn't have enough fire damage to cause a collapse.  It is the difference between layman knowledge and expert knowledge, that is not a trolling sentence before anyone has a go btw.

Do you think that during the time that the fire chief saw the scene and made his assessments that he was delluded into thinking it was going to collapse even though it bore out his professional opinion in the end?  ::  Or do you think he was in some form of conspiracy as well?

btw the more complicated a conspiracy gets to cover the facts the simpler it is to see that it is false.

----------


## darkman

> Those desperate to expose the US government as mass murderers will twist the media to make the story fit their warped theories.


They are guilty of mass murder especially in south America, hitler didn't kill all those people in ww2 but he was still responsible directly or not.

----------


## MadPict

Really?.........

----------


## Rheghead

> Really?.........


I know how you feel...

----------


## Kaishowing

> Did they fly a 737 into the core of this building?



Everyone keeps saying that they were 737's...they were in fact both 767's that hit the twin towers, with over double the weight of a 737, and over 3 times the fuel capacity of a 737.
With even 70% of the fuel burning off outside in the initial impacts from a 767, that still leaves roughly the equivalent of a 737 at it's fuel capacity of over 26,000 litres.

This of course has nothing to do with WTC7 as it wasn't struck by an aircraft.

----------


## darkman

> No, but it was hit by debris from the collapsing WTC which caused a huge hole  to appear in the side of the building facing the WTC...


A huge hole but wheres the severe fire that caused the building to collapse faster than wayne rooney?

----------


## darkman

> Really?.........


Really.....el salvador

----------


## Rheghead

> A huge hole but wheres the severe fire that caused the building to collapse faster than wayne rooney?


As per the Chief of Fire recollections

----------


## MadPict

Thanks kaishowing - not sure why I typed 737...


The fire was inside? It was visible through the windows in the video clip from "prisonplanet" - OK it wasn't pouring out of every window but fire is not predictable - no two fires are the same. 




> Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
> 
> WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



El Salvador? Really......

----------


## Kaishowing

I think that the idea that the devastation from 9/11 was directly orchestrated by the US government ludicrous.(IMHO)
The idea that some US citizens used the disaster to make some cash out of the situation, totally believable...Distastefull, but believable. After all, if Bin-Laden made a profit by selling his stocks and shares in the companies likely to be most effected by 9/11, why not anyone else?

Where I do find a conspiracy though, is the way that the Bush administration instantly tried to distance themselves from any connection between those responsible, when they were so pally-pally beforehand.
Also the way the media was manipulated to keep the world public in such a state of anxiety that any new laws passed in the name of 'national security' would be passed with the minimum of opposition.
THAT to me is the true conspiracy, and what really gets me angry is that in hindsight, they weren't even very good or subtle in their attempts to manipulate public opinion, but yet many fell for it....myself included right up until I saw Colin Powells farcical breifing to the UN (which even HE looked embarrassed about...quite a trick for a politician.)

As for the Twin Towers and WTC7, in my opinion the towers fell very quickly, but with the central supports damaged the floors would give way and once a couple 'went' adding their debris upon the floors below, then it would be like dominoes. Thats just a guess by the way.
With everything else happening that day, I can well imagine the fire crews being pulled away from WTC7 (probably a lost cause, -a judgement call for the ranking fire officer on-site) to concentrate on the surrounding area.
in such a built-up area, the fact that the fires didn't spread further than they did, is a testament to the NYFD.

----------


## MadPict

I also have no doubt that there were 'profiteers' who took advantage of the events of 9/11 - be they the individual claiming to have lost a loved one to claim the insurance pay out or the sad stories of Firefighters leaving their wives for the widows of their dead comrades. These are facts which have been exposed in the time since 9/11. No doubt they have to live with that shame.

And I agree that the Bush administration no doubt took the opportunity to bolster their laws - just as our government is trying to tighten the security of the UK by some knee jerk legislation since 7/7.

But I don't believe for one minute that a secret circle of businessmen/politicians conspired to destroy the financial centre of NY and along with it 1000's of people. 

Yes, the speed at which the twin towers fell was shocking.  But it was a shocking event brought about by a shocking and evil act.

Perhaps the words of a NYFD Chief might explain it -
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

I think that we should remember that people died on that day - some people died trying to help others. Not just Firefighters but ordinary people. 

The Firefighters who died that day _were_ heroes. I know that the US uses that word a lot but these were brave souls. 
http://nyfd.com/9_11_wtc.html

----------


## MadPict

No aviation fuel but it did contain emergency generator fuel - I have posted that info here already.

It did suffer damage - I have also posted that info too.

If the building had not been damaged it could well have remained standing - I have posted that info too.

I post the info but you still fail to acknowledge that it did get damaged to a degree it could have structurally comprised it.

The fires did burn inside it.

The two events together more than likely caused it's collapse.

Do you agree with this?

----------


## MadPict

Right back at you roy - how do you know everything you believe in or read is not falsified?

...Ay........

----------


## fred

> HOW do you know that is steel? There is ±124,500lbs of 737 in that building. That could be the aircraft metal components/fuselage melting. It could be aluminium in the building melting (ventilation ducts, fixtures and fittings).


White hot aluminium? That's a neat trick if you can do it.

Aluminium melts before it gets to red hot let alone white.

----------


## j4bberw0ck

> White hot aluminium? That's a neat trick if you can do it.
> 
> Aluminium melts before it gets to red hot let alone white.


Molten iron isn't white hot either, but if you think back to Bessemer Converters and the blow of oxygen through the iron, the ejecta from the throat of the thing certainly were.  Is it entirely inconceivable that oxidation of molten aluminium in the fierce wind outside the building might not have sparked white-hot?  Aluminium is a very reactive metal, far more so than steel.

Clearly something is coming out of the building in that video but I suggest it's infinitely more likely to be the plane's structural aluminium rather than the building's structural steel.

----------


## MadPict

fred,
You called it white hot, not me - I referred to it as molten metal. It could, therefore, be any metal. But I see you fail to answer my question. How can you tell it is "white hot molten steel"?

----------


## fred

> fred,
> You called it white hot, not me - I referred to it as molten metal. It could, therefore, be any metal. But I see you fail to answer my question. How can you tell it is "white hot molten steel"?


Because I've seen enough of both to know the difference.

In any case, if it had been aluminium then it would have been lumps of solidified molten aluminium they found in the rubble not lumps of solidified molten steel.

----------


## MadPict

Another conspiracy site - no thanks. I tire of going round in circles with this - enjoy your conspiracy.

I have better things to think about.

----------


## fred

> Molten iron isn't white hot either, but if you think back to Bessemer Converters and the blow of oxygen through the iron, the ejecta from the throat of the thing certainly were.  Is it entirely inconceivable that oxidation of molten aluminium in the fierce wind outside the building might not have sparked white-hot?  Aluminium is a very reactive metal, far more so than steel.


I've melted some iron and I can assure you it goes white hot before it melts.

Those fierce winds are just a figment of Reghead's imagination, in the real world 9/11/2001 was a dead calm day and wind speeds at the top of the towers were between 10 and 20 mph.

----------


## darkman

> The idea that some US citizens used the disaster to make some cash out of the situation, totally believable...Distastefull, but believable. After all, if Bin-Laden made a profit by selling his stocks and shares in the companies likely to be most effected by 9/11, why not anyone else?


Exactly my point.

----------


## darkman

> Another conspiracy site - no thanks. I tire of going round in circles with this - enjoy your conspiracy.
> 
> I have better things to think about.


Obviously not.

----------


## Rheghead

> White hot aluminium? That's a neat trick if you can do it.
> 
> Aluminium melts before it gets to red hot let alone white.


Aluminium in its pure form will melt as you say but aluminium alloys which get called the _generic_ term _aluminium_ come in all sorts of specifications and properties.

----------


## fred

> Aluminium in its pure form will melt as you say but aluminium alloys which get called the _generic_ term _aluminium_ come in all sorts of specifications and properties.


Yes, there are 31 common aluminium alloys in use with melting points between 615c and 740c.

----------


## fred

> How did Channel 5 know the second tower was going to collapse?


You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.

The only forces present on the day, according to the official story were heat in the form of carbon fires and gravity. Yet:

1. All three towers fell symetrically therefore all the support columns must have failed at exactly the same time, how is this possible?

2. Huge steel girders were ejected 600ft horizontally from the towers, how is this possible?

3. Most of the concrete in the towers was pulverised into fine dust, how is this possible?

4. The towers fell at almost freefall speed, how is this possible?

5. Pools of molten steel were found under the buildings, how is this possible?

Just the other day a former American four star General, Wesley Clark said in an interview that just days after 9/11 someone at the Pentagon showed him detailed plans for America to take out seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Afghanistan makes eight, 
I don't believe plans to take out eight countries arose as a result of 9/11 or were concieved so soon after 9/11, logic tells me that 9/11 arose as a result of those plans.

----------


## Rheghead

> How did Channel 5 know the second tower was going to collapse?


Let us look at the facts, a plane flies into one tower, then another plane flies into the other.  The first tower then crumbles to the ground.

Now don't get me wrong, but I don't think Mystic Meg is needed for the next piece of the story.

----------


## golach

> You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.


Fred, you say you have presented us with the absolute proof. What you have been presenting is one theory, that you and your anti American ilk have latched on to, I have the right to disbelieve you if I wish. And I wish. I suspect I am not the only one who thinks in a like mind.

----------


## fred

> Fred, you say you have presented us with the absolute proof. What you have been presenting is one theory, that you and your anti American ilk have latched on to, I have the right to disbelieve you if I wish. And I wish. I suspect I am not the only one who thinks in a like mind.


Once again you do nothing to explain how the official version could conceivably be true without breaking known laws of physics and explain it all away by saying I'm anti American. Several tons of steel mysteriously move horizontally when the only forces acting on them are vertical and you explain that by me being anti American.

Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. Star Wars program, former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney, Colonel Ronald D. Ray former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, they are all saying the same things I am, are they all anti American as well?

----------


## fred

> Let us look at the facts, a plane flies into one tower, then another plane flies into the other.  The first tower then crumbles to the ground.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, but I don't think Mystic Meg is needed for the next piece of the story.


And the pools of molten steel came from where?

----------


## golach

> Once again you do nothing to explain how the official version could conceivably be true without breaking known laws of physics and explain it all away by saying I'm anti American.


I have no reason to explain anything, I am saying that I and many others dont believe *your version* of events, and will continue to do so.

----------


## Rheghead

> And the pools of molten steel came from where?


Which pools of steel?

----------


## fred

> Which pools of steel?


See what I mean roy?

A complete waste of time.

----------


## crayola

> You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.
> 
> The only forces present on the day, according to the official story were heat in the form of carbon fires and gravity. Yet:
> 
> 1. All three towers fell symetrically therefore all the support columns must have failed at exactly the same time, how is this possible?
> 
> 2. Huge steel girders were ejected 600ft horizontally from the towers, how is this possible?
> 
> 3. Most of the concrete in the towers was pulverised into fine dust, how is this possible?
> ...


fred, you're a darling. You ask a lot of _questions_ and present them as incontestable _answers_. I love you for it. Could you leave your goats for one night and spend some time with me?  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> It must have been real hot to make cuts like these.


I assume you are on about the central stanchion(sp) because those cuts look definitely like they've been done with oxy-acetylene equipment.

----------


## fred

> fred, you're a darling. You ask a lot of _questions_ and present them as incontestable _answers_. I love you for it. Could you leave your goats for one night and spend some time with me?


Oh I think I could snuck out without them noticing  :Wink:

----------


## fred

> I assume you are on about the central stanchion(sp) because those cuts look definitely like they've been done with oxy-acetylene equipment.


They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.

Take a look at this or this there are plenty more where they came from.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.
> 
> Take a look at this or this there are plenty more where they came from.


It might just be me fred, however this is where I perceive the problem is - the credibility of your sources. I have lifted this quote from the second link/article which you have posted;

_"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher._ 
__
_In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel, Fuchek said."_

The temperature must have varied *much* higher than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, else the workers could not have pulled a steel beam from the wreckage that was still dripping _"molten steel"_. I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of metallurgy could be written on the rear of a postage stamp, however I'm sure I read somewhere on this thread that the melting point of steel was in excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, therefore you'll have to excuse my use of that information if it's wrong.

You do raise interesting points fred, however it appears that you pursue every shred of information *and* misinformation in an attempt to validate your arguments and you damage your credibility by doing so.

----------


## fred

> You do raise interesting points fred, however it appears that you pursue every shred of information *and* misinformation in an attempt to validate your arguments and you damage your credibility by doing so.


There is no conflict Blazing Sporrans the surface ground temperature would be expected to be considerably lower than the temperature of the molten metal burried under it. The surface temperature of a volcano is considerably lower than the temperature of the molten rock just below the surface.

----------


## Rheghead

> They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.
> 
> Take a look at this or this there are plenty more where they came from.


What pools of steel in them links?

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> There is no conflict Blazing Sporrans the surface ground temperature would be expected to be considerably lower than the temperature of the molten metal burried under it. The surface temperature of a volcano is considerably lower than the temperature of the molten rock just below the surface.


But he doesn't *say* that fred and nor does the article - instead that is the way you have chosen to *interpret* it, hence my earlier comment. I would much rather have read somewhere in the article that in the core of the rubble, the measured temperatures reached in excess of 2000 degrees, however that *fact* is lacking from your quoted source. Also the variation of ground temperature between 1500 degrees and 900 degrees must have affected the core temperature in a similar way, assuming that the author is actually referring to the *surface* temperature at ground zero - which might be hard to believe given the high temperatures quoted.  You have referred to the surface temperature in your response to me, however your quoted source doesn't use the word *surface*. At such temperatures those involved in the clear-up wouldn't have been able to get near the site. See fred, everything that's unqualified is open to individual interpretation.

Please don't argue that I'm splitting hairs, because I prefer to deal in absolutes, i.e. when acknowledged experts reach a consensus of opinion on a subject or when I can speak to evidence through my own personal experience. Instead all I seem to see on this thread is something that at best can be summed up as "east is east and west is west"...

----------


## fred

> But he doesn't *say* that fred and nor does the article - instead that is the way you have chosen to *interpret* it, hence my earlier comment.


It is the only logical way to interpret it and undoubtedly what was meant. If the weather man says there will be a ground frost tonight he's talking about the surface not six feet down even if he doesn't specifically say that.

Even below the ground the temperature would be expected to be considerably lower even a short distance from the molten metal just as someone can hold their hand just inches away from an open fire but not get burnt.




> Please don't argue that I'm splitting hairs,


You are splitting hairs, no doubt about it.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> It is the only logical way to interpret it and undoubtedly what was meant.


Here we go again - fred is always right and everybody else with a contrary opinion is wrong. How do you know what was undoubtedly meant? Do you have direct contact with the author? (I suspect not).

That's what I love about your debating skills fred, your 100% belief in yourself. Don't get me wrong - that's a good trait to have - however it's often helped by being appropriately armed with facts rather than your own, self-endowed, expert opinion.  ::  




> Even below the ground the temperature would be expected to be considerably lower even a short distance from the molten metal just as someone can hold their hand just inches away from an open fire but not get burnt.


An open fire burns out quickly though and needs continual refuelling. The fire/heat source at ground zero had to be progressively burning out, albeit very slowly, and while rubble and debris was being continually removed, the core temperature must have been reducing. Although I'm probably thinking too simply and 'inside the box' here as I don't share your level of technical expertise.....

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> If the weather man says there will be a ground frost tonight he's talking about the surface not six feet down even if he doesn't specifically say that.


Of course he's talking about the surface, that's why he says ground frost, not _under_ground frost  ::

----------


## fred

> Here we go again - fred is always right and everybody else with a contrary opinion is wrong. How do you know what was undoubtedly meant? Do you have direct contact with the author? (I suspect not).


It's just plain old common sense.




> An open fire burns out quickly though and needs continual refuelling. The fire/heat source at ground zero had to be progressively burning out, albeit very slowly, and while rubble and debris was being continually removed, the core temperature must have been reducing. Although I'm probably thinking too simply and 'inside the box' here as I don't share your level of technical expertise.....


You don't need technical expertise you just need a bit of common sense. Bury a lump of red hot metal in the ground and all the ground doesn't become the same temperature as the metal just as the metal doesn't suddenly become the temperature of the ground. The temperature just an inch away would be considerably less, an inch of lagging on a steam pipe makes a huge difference to the temperature.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> It's just plain old common sense.


You do yourself a disservice here fred, it's not common at all mate - it's almost unique to you  ::  




> You don't need technical expertise you just need a bit of common sense. Bury a lump of red hot metal in the ground and all the ground doesn't become the same temperature as the metal just as the metal doesn't suddenly become the temperature of the ground. The temperature just an inch away would be considerably less, an inch of lagging on a steam pipe makes a huge difference to the temperature.


Interesting example, except that the piece of red hot metal has no fuel source to maintain the heat and soons cools down, despite the insulation properties of the surrounding ground. Try it fred and let me know exactly how long it stays red hot for. I remember my 'O' grade physics teaching me heat loss using the formula "_delta h = c m delta t_" but I can't even begin to fathom the original temperature required, or the mass of the heated object that would sustain heat loss, yet allow such a high temperature (surface or core) to persist for such a long time in the aftermath of 9/11. I thought you'd already decided that the combustion of kerosene was insufficient to reach the temperatures required to melt steel, so what is the heat source that allows the steel at ground zero to remain molten for so long afterwards? Planting explosives is one thing, but providing a huge fuel source is another entirely. But what do I know? After all, I split too many hairs to be able to comprehend the magnitude of fred's enlightened reason....

----------


## fred

> Interesting example, except that the piece of red hot metal has no fuel source to maintain the heat and soons cools down, despite the insulation properties of the surrounding ground.


No, the concrete dust and the air trapped in it would have excelent insulating properties as does the ground. In the days before refrigerators they burried ice in winter and it stayed frozen all summer.

Look, they were pulling out lumps of red hot metal with molten steel dripping from it for weeks, there is masses of eye witness testimony, photographic and video evidence to prove it.

See this
video. There was molten steel flowing from the towers on 9/11.

See this
video. There were rivers of molten steel in the buildings.

See this video made 6 weeks later.

See this photo, it was taken 8 weeks later, they were still pulling out lumps of red hot metal dripping with molten steel then.


The evidence is just overwhelming that it happened but nobody has explained how, nobody con tell me where the heat came from to make it happen.

----------


## Rheghead

> The evidence is just overwhelming that it happened but nobody has explained how, nobody con tell me where the heat came from to make it happen.


I think you have been had Fred.  That picture is looks doctored to me.

----------


## fred

> I think you have been had Fred.  That picture is looks doctored to me.


I think you are just in a state of denial.

It doesn't matter how much evidence I post and there's plenty more of it, you'll never admit you were wrong.

Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time.

----------


## rambler

The evidence that there was plenty of molten steel is overwhelming. Loads of firefighters and other rescue peronnel have confirmed that and this all is well documented. 

Can please anybody can come forward with an evidence based explanation that there was no molten steel? Are all those firemen and pictures telling lies? People have pulled out lengths of steel beams out of the rubble of the buildings and they clearly said that the ends were still molten. They have provided pictures too. Those are the lads that were there and they did a hefty job! Now those of you that are in constant denial, what qualifies you to discard those statements?

----------


## Rheghead

> I think you are just in a state of denial.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much evidence I post and there's plenty more of it, you'll never admit you were wrong.
> 
> Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time.


I am not in denial, I think you are the one who is in denial.  Just have a look at the picture again, it is totally false.



First off, I have worked in a foundry and I am familiar with the properties of molten metal.

The colour of the dropping molten blobs of steel is wrong.  They should be yellow-yellow/white.  Anything more orange will be solid, the blobs are orange/red.  Molten steel gives off lots of light and would be almost impossible to look at with the naked eye, yet men are working on it with just a JCB!

Even the white smoke/steam is brighter than the molten metal!!

The photo was taken at night, so the brightest thing there should be the molten metal.  So where is the 'shine' reflecting from the surrounding pieces of debris?  There is none.

Plus there is something very odd with the bottom part of the 'molten' bit, it has a straight horizontal line underneath where one shade of orange changes to a brighter shade of orange, as if it has been pasted on.

The photograph, clearly has the molten steel in a similiar contrast as the background and foreground.  Any photo would be impossible to create naturally as the molten steel would over-expose the shot and send the background and foreground into blackness.  It clearly doesn't.  The correct effect is created where the lights over-expose the film on the right of the photo.  You clearly see the light's 'aurora' bleeding over the darkened debris, the same should be seen with the bright steel.

It is a fake photo, a good attempt but clearly a fake.

----------


## rambler

So all those that worked on the ground and had to deal with red hot steel are just telling lies?

----------


## JAWS

And it's taken all this time for somebody to manufacture that one. So now the BBC are part of the "Conspiracy", well fred, I'm glad we agree on something, the BBC News cannot be trusted to report the facts. 
And all this time you have refused to accept that they are politically motivated. 
If that is genuine, un-doctored BBC output then all it shows is that they will conspire to do anything in order to discredit the USA. 

Come on folks, lets all join in. The person with the silliest Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 gets a prize -  a copy of Grimms' Fairytales! 

Next fred will be telling us that News at Ten sent a camera crew out every night to show Big Ben striking live. 

I'm waiting for somebody to tell us that the WTC is still standing but pictures showing it to have gone have been doctored. 

Fred, even if all the conspiracy theories were true, at the end of the day there are only the few politically minded or those who want to write about Conspiracies who have the slightest interest. I love a good comedy, Monty Python, eat your heart out, at last you've got serious competition. 

Accept it fred, the horse is not only dead but the corpse has rotted away and keeping on flogging it ain't going to change that fact. 

Anybody believe that Capricorn One is the absolute truth about the moon landing? And Nessie does exist because there's a photo which "proves" it.

----------


## rambler

Hi Jaws, if you would only know how many people in New York know fairly well of molten steel etc., you would possibly change your mind.  Mainstream news have decided to promote the truths of Blair and Bush.  Well you see the result of this truth in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Maybe we see it in New York as well?  Fact is there was molten steel at the ground of the WTC.  Why?

----------


## JAWS

No Rambler, the question is, "Why Not?" When was the last time buildings of such size were damaged and collapsed in the same way for comparison. 

Oh yes, and you don't pick molten metal up with a Grab. I notice it is always the same highly dodgy pictures which appear time and again. Thats apart from the dodgy supposed BBC clip showing the Towers falling down before they did collapse. 
I shall watch the BBC closely in case they accidentally give the result of the next Grand National before the race starts so I can fleece the Bookies. Anybody want to bet it will never happen? 

The whole of the American Government, both Democrat and Republican, the whole of the American Military, the whole of the American Law Enforcement, the whole of the American Civil Aviation Authority and the whole of the World's media have conspired together to lie to the whole of the World's Population and everybody was fooled. 
The only people who know the real truth are those whose intellect is so far above that of the rest of humanity that only they know the truth. 

I'm surprised nobody has tried to blame the Little Green Men who are the ones really controlling the World. 
Ooh, look, another UFO! I told you Close Encounters was true! ET phone home! Or is One (they all) Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest more appropriate?  ::  

The only thing that I have become convinced of is that those who are determined to discover a Conspiracy have got so desperate that they will grasp at any passing fantasy that comes within range. Talk about grasping at straws, it seems some people are doing it by the armful. 
Still, it's good for a laugh if nothing else.  ::

----------


## fred

> I am not in denial, I think you are the one who is in denial.  Just have a look at the picture again, it is totally false.
> 
> First off, I have worked in a foundry and I am familiar with the properties of molten metal.
> 
> The colour of the dropping molten blobs of steel is wrong.  They should be yellow-yellow/white.  Anything more orange will be solid, the blobs are orange/red.  Molten steel gives off lots of light and would be almost impossible to look at with the naked eye, yet men are working on it with just a JCB!


That isn't a JCB.

Here's another video, a video of molten steel being poured in a steel foundary, is this one fake as well?



Must have been quite a conspiracy to fake molten steel at the WTC, doctoring the newsreel footage, bribing all those firemen and clearance workers to say they'd seen it, doctoring that photo, planting a huge lump of solidified steel and concrete at the scene.

There was molten steel at the WTC and a lot of it, there is too much evidence from too many different sources to believe otherwise, you are just clutching at straws in a desperate attempt at not having to admit you were wrong.

----------


## Rheghead

> That isn't a JCB.
> 
> Here's another video, a video of molten steel being poured in a steel foundary, is this one fake as well?
> 
> 
> 
> Must have been quite a conspiracy to fake molten steel at the WTC, doctoring the newsreel footage, bribing all those firemen and clearance workers to say they'd seen it, doctoring that photo, planting a huge lump of solidified steel and concrete at the scene.
> 
> There was molten steel at the WTC and a lot of it, there is too much evidence from too many different sources to believe otherwise, you are just clutching at straws in a desperate attempt at not having to admit you were wrong.


You have just proved my point.  The contrast is correct on this foundry photograph and the camera apperture is adjusted to the light and under exposed the surrounding area.  That clearly hasn't happened in the WTC shot.  And another point, to film molten metal you will need a filter or special film in the camera to prevent over exposure.

The contrast in the WTC shot is just wrong, it is a fake.

----------


## fred

> You have just proved my point.  The contrast is correct on this foundry photograph and the camera apperture is adjusted to the light and under exposed the surrounding area.  That clearly hasn't happened in the WTC shot.  And another point, to film molten metal you will need a filter or special film in the camera to prevent over exposure.
> 
> The contrast in the WTC shot is just wrong, it is a fake.


Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time, you will argue for ever but as how much evidence is piled up against you you will never admit you were wrong.

----------


## Metalattakk

So because Rheghead pulls your presented evidence to bits, and shows it for what it is - lies and "misinformation" - you accuse him of being in the wrong?

Do you fail to see the irony in that?

Away and pull yer heid in, man.

----------


## Rheghead

> Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time, you will argue for ever but as how much evidence is piled up against you you will never admit you were wrong.


How wrong you are for putting up fake photos as evidence.  You must think we've all sailed in on the last banana boat. ::

----------


## MadPict

Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack.........................


Iron Burns!!!.....................

----------


## JAWS

> Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time, you will argue for ever but as how much evidence is piled up against you you will never admit you were wrong.


That's about the most accurate thing you have said, fred. No matter how much evidence you will never change your mind. 
There are people who are still "convinced" the Earth is flat and everybody is tricked into believing it is round. 

And I suppose they really did carry out post mortems on Little Green Men from Roswell, after all there is a film which "proves" it. People just refuse to accept the truth even when such evidence is put before them. People are so stupid that they refuse to accept the film wasnt a fake. 

Next you will be trying to convince us that Nessie exists because there are photographs which prove that also. 
Then, of course, there is photographic proof that fairies exist, http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/sense_..._fairies.shtml 
In spite of such incontrovertible proof there are people who refuse to accept the facts about Fairies also!  :: 

The only "proof" which is being piled up is that the same old rubbish conspiracies are being rehashed over and over again and presented as "new evidence".

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Iron Burns!!!


Looks like fred's in for a bit of research to debunk this article....
As I said earlier, my knowledge of metallurgy is about equivalent with my knowledge of what the back of my head looks like, however at least you learn something when you follow the links posted.

Anyway fred, if you followed the evidence presented by links such as the one above with the same vigour and tenacity as you followed and consumed those that you post yourself, then it might make your arguments a bit more even-handed. Instead, your stance always seems that of "_accept what I tell you blindly or be labelled ignorant, uninformed, misled, with your head stuck in the sand_". A good debate is one in which *both* sides can learn from one another - not just thumbing your nose and yelling "yah boo and sucks" because someone else enjoys and offers a contrary opinion.

----------


## darkman

> BBCs' head editor of the news, Mr. Porter has now responded to the furore by saying they lost all the tapes from the day of 9/11 and none of the ones that BBC News 24 would help any. Sounds familiar...


One of the greatest atrocities america has suffered and they lose the tapes, what a bunch of lying toerags.

----------


## JAWS

> One of the greatest atrocities america has suffered and they lose the tapes, what a bunch of lying toerags.


The sudden "Discovery" of the alleged BBCs tapes, which have strangely remained completely un-noticed by all the Conspiracy Buffs for over six years, strikes me as rather strange. 

What is even more peculiar, or perhaps I should say convenient, is that the attempt to suddenly include the BBC in the Conspiracy comes very shortly after they broadcast a programme demolishing most of the more popular Conspiracy Myths which some seem so keen to have us believe. 

The BBC, having shown the main Myths to be so many fantasies must now be denounced, after six very long, long years, as having been part of the Original Conspiracy in a rushed attempt to discredit it and therefore its recent programme. 

How strange that such a glaring error made on one of the most watched TV Channels, on a day when many people were glued to the News, should just have happened not to be noticed at the time, let alone be missed for over six years. Unless the countless thousands who were watching the BBC at the time were also Part of the Conspiracy! 

At this rate, the only people who will not end up as part of the 9/11 Conspiracy will be those involved in spreading such rubbish. The cast of Conspirators must, by now, run into tens of millions of people throughout the world. 

I hate to admit it, but I actually noticed the BBC's mistake on the day but I got a personal phone-call from the White House asking me not to say anything! 
Well, even thats more believable than some of the tripe put about by those who would have us believe in all the Conspiracies. 

Sorry, whats that GW? No, I didnt have to tell them. The BBC footage is already on the Web so everybody knows it has to be true!

----------


## Rheghead

Jaws, there was a programme on tonight that mentions the phenomenon of the 'mash-up'.  A 'Mash-up' is a piece of footage where film clips can now easily be re-edited and displayed on youtube to say anything that the conspiracy theorists want.

----------


## fred

> How wrong you are for putting up fake photos as evidence.  You must think we've all sailed in on the last banana boat.


Rubbish, the photo isn't fake, you're clutching at straws.

I suppose you'll be saying next that all the eye witnesses who corroberate what is shown in the photo are liers.

Admit it, there is no doubt that steel melted on 9/11, the only reason you deny it is because you know there is no way the official version of events can explain it.




> Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6. [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]
> 
> William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
> 
> Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 pdf file]
> 
> Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
> 
> Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that feeling the heat and seeing the molten steel there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 pdf file]
> ...

----------


## Rheghead

> Rubbish, the photo isn't fake, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> I suppose you'll be saying next that all the eye witnesses who corroberate what is shown in the photo are liers.
> 
> Admit it, there is no doubt that steel melted on 9/11, the only reason you deny it is because you know there is no way the official version of events can explain it.


I am not getting in an arguement about it, it is a fake.  My observations about brightness and contrast are completely valid yet the WTC photo is inconsistent with other photos of molten steel.  You can even see lava splashes to left of the grab from the original photo of a volcano like Mauna Loa.  The molten bit is completely solid orange/red with no black debris in amongst it and it has 90 degree angles to it.  The creator of the photo hasn't even gone to the bother of blending the colours correctly from outside the 'lava square'. 

The molten bit should be the brightest thing in the photo with glare and reflections on the grab, but it is out of contrast and very poorly done.  I could do a better job!!  In fact I have done!! ::

----------


## Rheghead

> See this


This certainly looks like molten steel/other metal, I will accept that this is what you say.  All that jet fuel and burning furnishings must have caused the structure or other fittings to melt in accordance with the theory that the steel framework did actually soften and buckle under the weight of the floors above.

----------


## fred

> I am not getting in an arguement about it, it is a fake.  My observations about brightness and contrast are completely valid yet the WTC photo is inconsistent with other photos of molten steel.  You can even see lava splashes to left of the grab from the original photo of a volcano like Mauna Loa.  The molten bit is completely solid orange/red with no black debris in amongst it and it has 90 degree angles to it.  The creator of the photo hasn't even gone to the bother of blending the colours correctly from outside the 'lava square'. 
> 
> The molten bit should be the brightest thing in the photo with glare and reflections on the grab, but it is out of contrast and very poorly done.  I could do a better job!!  In fact I have done!!


The photo is genuine, there is no doubt of that and the eye witness reports are genuine too.

But all this is taking us away from the point of the thread, remind me again just how did the BBC describe the collapse of a building 20 minutes before it collapsed and with the building in plain view behind the reporter?

----------


## fred

> Sorry, whats that GW? No, I didnt have to tell them. The BBC footage is already on the Web so everybody knows it has to be true!


No problem.

If it isn't true then all the BBC needs to do is release the original recording from the day and prove it never happened.

----------


## Metalattakk

> ...At this rate, the only people who will not end up as part of the 9/11 Conspiracy will be those involved in spreading such rubbish. The cast of Conspirators must, by now, run into tens of millions of people throughout the world.
> 
> I hate to admit it, but I actually noticed the BBC's mistake on the day but I got a personal phone-call from the White House asking me not to say anything!...


Haud yer wheesht now, JAWS...we all got that 'phone call too...except fred, of course.  ::

----------


## JAWS

> This certainly looks like molten steel/other metal, I will accept that this is what you say.  All that jet fuel and burning furnishings must have caused the structure or other fittings to melt in accordance with the theory that the steel framework did actually soften and buckle under the weight of the floors above.


The claim that aviation fuel does not burn at a temperature sufficient to melt steel is perfectly true. The problem is that there is no need for such a temperature to be reached. Steel starts to soften and buckle at a temperature between 600 and 700 degrees which is well within the temperature that aviation fuel reaches. 

Like so many of the "it couldn't happen" claims when you check them out you discover that indeed they are correct. The only problem is that they simply didn't need to happen because the need for them has been deliberately grossly exaggerated to feed the malicious politically motivated claims of those intent on mischief. 

They make their claims in the hope that people will not bother to check their veracity. 
They will make a claim that it cant be raining here because they are not getting wet. It is only when you check and find that here is in the middle of a building that you realise their stated fact says absolutely nothing about the weather conditions at all and that they are simply hoping to mislead you.  
The term for that is, lying by omission and they are expert at doing it. 

The silly claims about the BBC, and the game has just been given away, is in the hope of dragging the BBC into a long drawn out Did they?, Didnt they? dispute purely in order to draw attention to themselves in the hope of drawing others into their fantasies. I suspect the BBC have done the sensible thing and sidestepped the issue completely.

----------


## fred

> The claim that aviation fuel does not burn at a temperature sufficient to melt steel is perfectly true. The problem is that there is no need for such a temperature to be reached. Steel starts to soften and buckle at a temperature between 600 and 700 degrees which is well within the temperature that aviation fuel reaches.


At what temperature does steel start pouring out of windows though?

----------


## MadPict

Molten Steel.........

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

Forgive me MadPict for posting from the link you've provided, however I thought that seeing these photos along with the accompanying text in close proximity to fred's post was the best answer to his question...

_"The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow._
_One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely..._
___Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black._
_Jones writes:"This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"_
_I think at a cooler temperature, he's right._
_What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911"._
___The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum."_

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> If it isn't true then all the BBC needs to do is release the original recording from the day and prove it never happened.


Ever since the Washington Post exposed Watergate as a conspiracy involving the highest level of the US government, it must have been every reporter's dream to become involved in their own expose which would shake the very foundation of their or another's government. To assume that every reporter in every section of the world's media is in collusion with Bush/Blair for the purposes of annexing the Middle East is nonsensical in the extreme.

The biggest story here would not be the terrorist atrocity at the World Trade Centre - *BY FAR* the bigger story would be that the US government were involved in the mass murder of their own citizens on American soil. At this moment in time, when so many sections within the western media are critical of the US-led intervention in Iraq, it beggars belief that they would still be complicit in a cover-up of the _truth_ that fred would have us believe is out there. Five and a half years on, there is still no credible evidence supported by any part of the world's major media that such subterfuge has occurred. That tells me all _I_ need to know....

----------


## sweetheart

Part of the reason i stay up here, is because of the 9/11 attacks.  I have 
worked jobs in 2 of the towers that collapsed, in software engineering, at
salomon brothers on the 40th floor of 7wtc in 1991, and at 1wtc at Sybase
on floor 79.  in sept 2001, our london-based company for which i was the 
engineering director, had developed a spreadsheet-integrated plugin 
that allowed a pension fund manager to trade directly using the FIX 
portion of the GSTPA protocols in global finance.  These protocols were 
holding a public tradeshow at windows on the world that morning, above 
where the first plane hit, from where nobody survived.  The attacks destroyed 
the business, by killing our sales pipeline at a critical point in 
the business's development.

I believe that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush helped to organize the attacks
through their connections to saudi secret services, as part of a global 
coup, partly outlined in a plan they published in advance called "Project for 
the New American Century".  In it, they specify the need
for a pearl harbor-like event to sponsor a call for their crusade to take 
over the middle east oil (as determined by cheney's unpublic energy 
consultations).  Then a few thousand lives is a small price to pay,
like churchhill letting the nazis bomb coventry, a few lives lost to achieve
staggering political objectives.  Their domestic adgenda includes massive 
imprisonment:  (about that) http://dunwalke.com/

They represent the business interest of big war and big oil, and houston
 slavery culture that does not respect a middle class is it does not see the
need for one.  They have ruthlessly set about social engineering with mass
imprisonment, race-based adgenda:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...0&ItemID=12253

Any person with any engineering background knows that fossil fuels fires
burning for less than an hour haven't a prayer at melting steel, and even
more suspicously, that the 47 core steel beams, 36 inches 16 inch box 
beams 5 inches thick all had to fail simultaeously down the building, falling
at the speed of a free-falling object through the path of most resistance.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...restry9111.jpg

The conference they attacked that morning was in financial globalisation
and transparency, something that would expose their hienous criminality.

The fact that it was the largest robbery in history, is left out of too many
accounts of 9/11, and the benefactors were (suprise!) the bush cheney
clan.  Trillions missing in the pentagon finance office were conveniently
forgotten by bombing it, the dot com pending lawsuits, the gold in the
basements, the records of all the drugs trafficing of the bush clan.

Those people are really evil, evil beyond the wildest dreams of most
people, and it is well within their modus operendii to execute thousands for
the political imperium they represent.  Subsequent years have turned this
to 'obvous', but some people are still slow on the uptake.

The evidence of the demolitions is clear in the richter scale videos that anyone 
who's researched can observe.

There are photos of cars all around the ground zero site, where the metal
has been melted, and the plastic untouched, where the front half of the
car is missing, and the petrol tank is unfired:  This car was a kilometer away, 
what avaition fuel does that?  
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ARG/Image9.jpg
Any person with a physics background can observe that no normal event causes this.

You can see the bomb craters in the roof from the military demolition.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...G/Image141.jpg

 The world trade demolitions' primary political objective was to overturn
the american civil war, and to disenfranchise and enslave, like they have
to millions of americans since they took power, as well as millions around
the earth.  What was 3000 lives, but a small price to pay in amoral men
who's wars cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Because britain is on the side of the nazis in this war, the BBC won't expose
the causus belli reichstag fire if it burned them.

----------


## darkman

How did wtc7 manage to fall so quickly and evenly, 6.5 seconds or 7 floors per second?

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

Visit this site for an explanation re WTC7. A summary of evidential points presented there follows; 
(for those not in the know, Silverstein is the owner of WTC7)


"As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...What we do have for sure.1) Fireman saying there was* "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".* 2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, *"that building doesnt look straight."* He then says *"It didnt look right".*3) They put a transit on it and afterward were *"pretty sure she was going to collapse."*4) They *"saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13"*.5) *Photographic evidence* of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first. 6) *The penthouse fell first*, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.7) *The collapse happened from the bottom*.8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. *Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.*9) *Silverstein is not a demolition expert* and was *talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert.* Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?10) *Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition".* He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.11)* Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull".* (Whatever that means) "*they* made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"12) *Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.*What we don't have...1) Clear view of the large hole2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side4) Any sign of an actual explosive.Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?Have a look at this interview with Building 7 in the background - because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says This is it as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says What weve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened. Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?"

----------


## fred

> Ever since the Washington Post exposed Watergate as a conspiracy involving the highest level of the US government, it must have been every reporter's dream to become involved in their own expose which would shake the very foundation of their or another's government. To assume that every reporter in every section of the world's media is in collusion with Bush/Blair for the purposes of annexing the Middle East is nonsensical in the extreme.


I haven't seen anyone assume that.




> The biggest story here would not be the terrorist atrocity at the World Trade Centre - *BY FAR* the bigger story would be that the US government were involved in the mass murder of their own citizens on American soil. At this moment in time, when so many sections within the western media are critical of the US-led intervention in Iraq, it beggars belief that they would still be complicit in a cover-up of the _truth_ that fred would have us believe is out there. Five and a half years on, there is still no credible evidence supported by any part of the world's major media that such subterfuge has occurred. That tells me all _I_ need to know....


Why do you find it hard to believe that the US government would be complicit in the terrorist attack on the WTC on 9/11 when they have form for it? They were complicit in the WTC bomb attacks in 1993, the person who made the bombs which killed six people and injured a thousand was working for and under the supervision of the FBI.

----------


## fred

> Molten Steel.........


They seem to be going to great lengths to make it as complicated as possible when really it's quite simple.

Here is a video of  molten aluminium.

Here is a video of molten steel.

This is the video of the South Tower.

Which do you see?

----------


## Kaishowing

Without taking sides here, I'm just wondering if the steels were cut like that to clear part of the debris away. From what I remember of the days following the collapse of the towers, there were great loops of the steel bent over at the base of  what was called Ground Zero which must have been obstructing any clear-up.
Makes sense to cut away the obstruction to allow easier access to the site......but without knowing exactly where the picture was taken, I fail to see the relevance to WTC7, which is what the thread was originally about. :Smile:

----------


## MadPict

fred,
I see someone who believes the 9/11 conspiracy garbage. I don't, so save your breath.........

kaishowing,
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> I haven't seen anyone assume that.


Using your own unfailing logic fred, is it not fair to have some level of assumption that the mainstream media are in collusion with the US government by maintaining their silence, or failing to properly investigate the whole conspiracy theory to your satisfaction? How come they *all* remain in the dark while it is left to vociferous campaigners like yourself to spread the truth and help us poor mushrooms see the light?




> Why do you find it hard to believe that the US government would be complicit in the terrorist attack on the WTC on 9/11 when they have form for it? They were complicit in the WTC bomb attacks in 1993, the person who made the bombs which killed six people and injured a thousand was working for and under the supervision of the FBI.


I've obviously confused you here fred - my point was that why would the *media* be complicit with US government in burying the biggest news story of all time instead of using your _truth_ to bring down Bush, Cheney and Blair?

----------


## fred

> I believe that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush helped to organize the attacks
> through their connections to saudi secret services, as part of a global 
> coup, partly outlined in a plan they published in advance called "Project for 
> the New American Century".


Have you seen the latest? Cheney's old firm of war profiteers who have been ripping the American taxpayer off for billions in no bid contracts are relocating to Dubai so they don't have to pay tax on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6440365.stm

Isn't it starting to dawn on the American public yet that they've been had?

----------


## MadPict

I guess that day will come around the same time as you realise that you have "been had".........

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> They seem to be going to great lengths to make it as complicated as possible when really it's quite simple.
> 
> Here is *a* video of molten aluminium.
> 
> Here is *a* video of molten steel.
> 
> This is the video of the South Tower.
> 
> Which do you see?


See post #192 for that answer....
"_Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black"_  :: 

Anyway as Kaishowing rightly said, is this debate not about WTC7 - so when do we get onto United 93 fred?

----------


## fred

> See post #192 for that answer....
> "_Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black"_


I haven't seen any evidence of the sustance solidifying near the end of it's journey, shots from a different angle show the substance still liquid at the end of it's journey whereas aluminium with a high thermal conductivity would have solidified near the start of its journey.

Don't you see what you're doing? I show you an entire video of something that looks just like molten steel and you focus on a few pixels in a still that look grey and may or may not be solid then say it must all be aluminium.




> Anyway as Kaishowing rightly said, is this debate not about WTC7 - so when do we get onto United 93 fred?


Yes, this is about WT7, molten metal was found in the ruins there too even though it wasn't hit by an aluminium plane. WTC7 is one of only three steel framed buildings in history to suffer complete and symetrical collapse for any reason other than controlled demolition, the other two being WTC1 and WTC2, they've been through fires and they've been through earthquakes but never before has there been complete and symetrical collapse because that is impossible.

Use your eyes man and use your brain, look at these pictures, this is what you get when a steel framed building collapses not a hole in the ground filled with pulverised concrete dust with molten steel flowing through it.

----------


## MadPict

Were any of the above buildings exposed to the same effects of fire and structural damage as WTC7? What was the cause of their 'failure'? You don't (like many CT/truth seekers/9/11 deniers) actually link to any facts about these collapses. You just "quote mine" to try to reinforce your argument or pick the images to fit your POV....*





> Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.
> 
>  Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".
> 
> And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?
> 
> "But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.
> 
> This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
> ...


For full enlightenment please read the source of the above quote which includes pictures and video....

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


**
Oh what a surprise - I guess you mined these images from a 9/11 Denial site - these buildings collapsed under the effects of an EARTHQUAKE. A 7.6 Richter scale quake at that. And where did this happen? Taiwan. 
I dare say the building were not constructed to withstand earthquakes and may even have been built to sub-standard building regulations or even on the cheap. 
So, buildings which were damaged in a major earthquake (Major, 7.0-7.9, Can cause serious damage over larger areas.) CANNOT be likened to the collapse of a building damaged by fire and structural weakening by as much as 25% of its lower floors. Your "evidence' would not stand scrutiny in a court of law. It is akin to hearsay....*

----------


## Rheghead

> Rubbish, the photo isn't fake, you're clutching at straws.
> 
> I suppose you'll be saying next that all the eye witnesses who corroberate what is shown in the photo are liers.
> 
> Admit it, there is no doubt that steel melted on 9/11, the only reason you deny it is because you know there is no way the official version of events can explain it.


Fred, I am not the only person to have trouble in fathoming out the content of that photo, this web page also points out that the photo is unconfirmed as they have doubts as to its authenticity.  This cannot be a coincidence as it has just been brought to my attention, it appears that myself, madpict and metalatack are not the only ones to be duped by a fake photograph though the author of this website just stops short of suggesting that is so.

From now on, I will have to look at your posts from an immediate presumption of suspicion, sorry old chap...

----------


## fred

> Fred, I am not the only person to have trouble in fathoming out the content of that photo, this web page also points out that the photo is unconfirmed as they have doubts as to its authenticity.  This cannot be a coincidence as it has just been brought to my attention, it appears that myself, madpict and metalatack are not the only ones to be duped by a fake photograph though the author of this website just stops short of suggesting that is so.


Once again they seem to be going to great lengths to make things complicated to try and cast doubt on a number of indipendent reports of molten steel. Frank Silecchia who was a clearance worker at Ground Zero says where and when he took the photo which ties in with other indipendent reports of red hot girders dripping with molten steel but because there is no absolute irrefutable proof that that is what happened the photo must be fake.
Unless you can give me some absolute irrefutable proof that the photo is fake I'll do the logical thing and assume it is genuine.




> From now on, I will have to look at your posts from an immediate presumption of suspicion, sorry old chap...


I've been looking at yours with suspicion for a long time.

----------


## Rheghead

> Unless you can give me some absolute irrefutable proof that the photo is fake I'll do the logical thing and assume it is genuine.


It has the wrong contrast, it is poorly pasted together, there is bad blending involved, there is no shine reflection on the underside of the grab, the molten steel is not bright enough and wrong colour, there is pasting lines, it is unauthenticated etc etc etc.  

Nothing complicated in that, pretty simple really, you believe what you want, I didn't expect you to believe me anyway, it is a fake.

----------


## fred

> Oh what a surprise - I guess you mined these images from a 9/11 Denial site - these buildings collapsed under the effects of an _EARTHQUAKE_. A 7.6 Richter scale quake at that. And where did this happen? Taiwan.


That's right, a 7.6 on the Richter scale earthquake not superficial damage to one side and a few isolated fires like WTC7, the damage should have been far worse than WTC7.

So how did WTC7 end up looking like this while the buildings close in either side are almost unscathed?

----------


## George Brims

42,000 gallons of diesel fuel for emergency generators is one probable cause of the collapse according to many engineers who have studied what happened. To put things in perspective, the fire dept pulled their personnel from the area of WTC7 at 1130 am, and the fires burned unchecked for another 6 hours before the building toppled.

----------


## MadPict

Do you know anything about how earthquakes affect structures? Buildings in earthquakes are affected by massive forces usually causing the buildings to move sideways as well as vertically. If the foundations are compromised before the structural integrity of the building (the 'framework') it will topple over. 
Just as the buildings in Taiwan have done in your images - they fell over after probably a few seconds of siesmic activity. Modern buildings built in quake zones have shock absorbing foundations to absorb the worst of the shock waves. thats why many modern buildings might remain standing while older ones 'fall over'.

The WTC 7 building on the other hand suffered damage and was on fire - for some hours.




> ...not superficial damage to one side and a few isolated fires like WTC7...


"Superficial damage"?
"A few isolated fires"?

And you can PROVE this how? Try and do it without reference to ANY site which subscribes to the conspiracy theory.

By ignoring the testimony of firefighters, structural engineers and a whole shedload of better qualified people than yourself and the majority of the "truth seekers"?......

By cherry picking images and by selectively quoting people involved in 9/11, no matter how spurious their link to the event, to put across the bizarro world agenda of the 9/11 denial brigade?

Come on fred, tell us how you feel about Chemtrails? Is it another area that you subscibe to? Are we being subjected to mind control drugs?......

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> That's right, a 7.6 on the Richter scale earthquake not superficial damage to one side and a few isolated fires like WTC7...


Sorry again MadPict but I couldn't let this latest _fredism_ go without response either. Since when did a 20 storey hole constitute "superficial damage"? So here you go fred, read this and I'll await your response with interest.... This man, this named and quoted source, was there on the day and provides incontrovertible evidence regarding the weakening of the structure of WTC7, the unchecked fire, the _massive_ hole in the building and no water pressure to fight fires in the area. (You'll appreciate that I've edited some of the content but the link to the site is there to verify the authenticity of this abstract. I've also highlighted some crucial sentences and phrases.)

*"WTC: This Is Their Story*


_From the August 2002 Firehouse Magazine_ 
*Captain Chris Boyle*
_Engine 94 - 18 years_


*Boyle:* There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. *They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street.* Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up. A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there *was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.* But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. *That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good.* I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. *Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.* 
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. *And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.* 

*Firehouse:* When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side? 

*Boyle:* *I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.* 

*Firehouse:* When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

*Boyle:* *There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.* And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. 

*Firehouse:* Could you see building 7 again from there? 

*Boyle:* Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldn't see it, couldn't see a damn thing. *All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away.* We ran into the people running around for water for the eyes because everybody's eyes were burned and I don't know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some other people. They were just running around, washing people's eyes out. 
We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and everything was black again. 

*Firehouse:* So number 7 comes down. Everything went black?

*Boyle:* It was like it was night again..."


There you go fred - dispute these facts and that testimony. No - wait - I've fallen for it hook, line and sinker, he's not a fireman - he's one of _them._ He's just been deep under cover for 17 years awaiting the right moment....

I'm also still waiting for your response regarding the unfathomable complicity of the world's media in the hushing-up of the biggest story of all time.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Unless you can give me some absolute irrefutable proof that the photo is fake I'll do the logical thing and assume it is genuine.


And as the emergency services will tell you mate, "assumptions are the mother of all <ahem> mistakes..."

----------


## fred

> "Superficial damage"?
> "A few isolated fires"?
> 
> And you can PROVE this how? Try and do it without reference to ANY site which subscribes to the conspiracy theory.


Just look at the description in Blazing Sporran's post above, the damage was to one face of the building. Most of the buildings strength was in the 25 central core columns. Damage to perimiter columns on one side of the building would make a symetrical collapse less likely.

I've seen videos of the building from most angles and seen no evidence of large areas of it being engufed with raging inferos. Not like in pictures of fires in other buildings...which didn't fall down.




> By ignoring the testimony of firefighters, structural engineers and a whole shedload of better qualified people than yourself and the majority of the "truth seekers"?......


But earlier I posted a video of firefighters testifying to seeing rivers of molten steel under the buildings, I'm not ignoring it, you are.

Here is another video of a firefighter made on 9/11 you may wish to ignore.




> By cherry picking images and by selectively quoting people involved in 9/11, no matter how spurious their link to the event, to put across the bizarro world agenda of the 9/11 denial brigade?
> 
> Come on fred, tell us how you feel about Chemtrails? Is it another area that you subscibe to? Are we being subjected to mind control drugs?......


How is this relevant?

Is your argument so weak that you need to try and convince people that I subscribe to such theories to try and discredit me?

----------


## fred

> Sorry again MadPict but I couldn't let this latest _fredism_ go without response either. Since when did a 20 storey hole constitute "superficial damage"? So here you go fred, read this and I'll await your response with interest.... This man, this named and quoted source, was there on the day and provides incontrovertible evidence regarding the weakening of the structure of WTC7, the unchecked fire, the _massive_ hole in the building and no water pressure to fight fires in the area. (You'll appreciate that I've edited some of the content but the link to the site is there to verify the authenticity of this abstract. I've also highlighted some crucial sentences and phrases.)


I find the shortage of water excuse a little hard to believe seeing as the World Trade Center was built on the banks of the Hudson River.

Don't New York fire engines have pumps and hoses?

----------


## MadPict

fred,
With every new post you are managing to discredit yourself. You need no help from me.....

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> I find the shortage of water excuse a little hard to believe seeing as the World Trade Center was built on the banks of the Hudson River.
> Don't New York fire engines have pumps and hoses?


Shouldn't you direct that to NYFD? I'm no fire-fighter, however I doubt that the tenders could pump in water in the quantites required, nor would they likely achieve the pressure that the mains hydrant system would provide. But hey - that's just my own observation - however I'll _gladly_ believe the testimony of Captain Chris Boyle, who was there on the day, even if you won't.

The thing I love about you fred ( ::  ), is the way you cherry-pick the questions you wish to answer and blindly ignore the rest, so I'll ask again (for the third time);
*why would the world's media be complicit with the US government in burying the biggest news story of all time instead of using your truth to bring down Bush, Cheney and Blair?*

----------


## fred

> I'm also still waiting for your response regarding the unfathomable complicity of the world's media in the hushing-up of the biggest story of all time.


You are the one making that claim you respond to it.

I just pointed out that the BBC described the collapse of a building which was still standing, in plain view, at the time.

----------


## fred

> The thing I love about you fred ( ), is the way you cherry-pick the questions you wish to answer and blindly ignore the rest, so I'll ask again (for the third time);
> *why would the world's media be complicit with the US government in burying the biggest news story of all time instead of using your truth to bring down Bush, Cheney and Blair?*


But I didn't cherry pick anything and I did reply to your question.

Why do you and MadPict keep making personal attacks?

----------


## Metalattakk

> But I didn't cherry pick anything and I did reply to your question.
> 
> Why do you and MadPict keep making personal attacks?


I see no personal attacks here, fred. What I do see is someone blatantly trying to wriggle out of an extremely tight spot (of their own making), and failing rather miserably.

Now, are you going to answer Blazing Sporran's question or not? I'd guess not, as it's plain to see you don't have a clue how to answer it while still retaining the miniscule modicum of dignity that you are clinging so desperately to.

Now, you can consider that a personal attack if you want. Your beliefs (and the way you have presented them) are frankly laughable.

----------


## Rheghead

> Frank Silecchia who was a clearance worker at Ground Zero says where and when he took the photo which ties in with other indipendent reports of red hot girders dripping with molten steel but because there is no absolute irrefutable proof that that is what happened the photo must be fake.


2 things.

I do not believe that there is any evidence anywhere that Frank Silecchia actually took the photograph.

Steel wouldn't melt like a dripping candle.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> But I didn't cherry pick anything and I did reply to your question.


 errrmmmm..... where?




> Why do you and MadPict keep making personal attacks?


 errrmmmm..... where? Debating (very) loosely presented evidence in an environment such as this hardly constitutes a "personal attack" does it?

From your replies fred, or lack of them, I can only wonder as to what your next point will be, so can I slightly alter my earlier questions and ask whether you believe the world's media are complicit with the US government in the alleged 9/11 'cover-up' by their silence and failure to adequately investigate such a cover-up? You see fred, this is what the heart of debate is truly about, presenting an opinion or belief with adequate evidence to try and sway the opinion of the otherwise ambivalent observer. In these circumstances, you have to be very careful with each and every word, phrase or sentence that you present. As I said to you (much) earlier, you present some topics that give the reader much to cogitate over, however you often shoot yourself in the foot in your zealous presentation of information and *mis*information from both credible and dubious sources as if it were all one. No offence intended - just an observation.  :Wink:

----------


## JAWS

> You are the one making that claim you respond to it.
> 
> I just pointed out that the BBC described the collapse of a building which was still standing, in plain view, at the time.


So you are absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the clip, which has mysteriously appeared years after the event, "supposedly" showing the BBC describing the collapse of the building which was still standing is verifiably accurate? 

Could this be yet another example of the wishful thinking which alleged that all the phonecalls from Flight 93 could not possibly have been made because Mobile (Cell) Phones would not work at 40,000 feet when, in fact, only two short calls, made at an unknown height, were made using Mobiles. 
All the other calls were made from the Air-phone on the plane and the Mobile (Cell) Phone story was complete invention. 

What I would like to know is who writes the script because they could make a good living writing Adventure Books for Children.  When is the book written by the person who "discovered" the "error" due to be published?  A good title for it could be, Drop the Dead Donkey!

----------


## fred

> errrmmmm..... where?


Here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....&postcount=197
And here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....&postcount=219

----------


## fred

> So you are absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the clip, which has mysteriously appeared years after the event, "supposedly" showing the BBC describing the collapse of the building which was still standing is verifiably accurate?


I'm sure that if it wasn't accurate then that could be easily verified by the BBC playing the genuine footage from the day and proving it fake.

----------


## JAWS

No, it is upto the accusers to prove what they say is true, not upto the BBC to join in and give credence to every internet fantasy. 
Why has it taken so long for such "damning proof" to be "discovered"? I wonder how long it took to dream the idea up? 

Could it be that the BBC debunked most of the stupid conspiracies made up about the Twin Towers. Every time one dies a death by some strange coincidence somebody "discovers" yet another, each one more pathetic than the last. 

If the BBC respond sensibly they will hand the "plot" over to their best comedy writers, it could keep them going for years. 

"It must be true because nobody has bothered to prove it isn't." Following  that argument Father Christmas must exist because nobody has proved he doesn't. 
Fred, you had better be a good boy or he might not bring you presents this year.  ::

----------


## fred

> No, it is upto the accusers to prove what they say is true, not upto the BBC to join in and give credence to every internet fantasy.


So if someone is accused of a crime and they have a cast iron alibi they should keep quiet about it?

----------


## Metalattakk

Ah but, here you are twisting the facts again, fred.

No-one has accused the BBC of any 'crime'.

Put it this way, fred: If some loony off the internet accused you of a preposterous crime, would you feel duty-bound to even respond, never mind defend yourself?  :Grin:

----------


## fred

> Ah but, here you are twisting the facts again, fred.
> 
> No-one has accused the BBC of any 'crime'.
> 
> Put it this way, fred: If some loony off the internet accused you of a preposterous crime, would you feel duty-bound to even respond, never mind defend yourself?


The BBC did respond and did not deny that the clip was genuine.

----------


## JAWS

> So if someone is accused of a crime and they have a cast iron alibi they should keep quiet about it?


The best reaction when bunch of comedians accuse you of an pathetically manufactured offence is to say, "I've no idea. Prove it! And if you can't then go away and stop being stupid!" 
Seems to me that the BBC have responded in the best possible way. 
They have refused to waste one second on a pathetic attempt to start yet another moronic Conspiracy Theory. 

Oh look, there goes another "Flying Pig". Sorry, mustn't mock the afflicted!  ::  Sorry, I'm trying to keep a straight face, honest, really I am.  :: 
:

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....&postcount=197
> And here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....&postcount=219


Sorry fred - not trying to be obtuse here (cue fred's predictable response "you're being obtuse here") however as far as I can see, your post #219 is a failure to repond to the question (in rather a childish manner if you don't mind me saying so). Post #197 is your answer to a question in which you have grasped the wrong end of the stick completely. I've detailed your misunderstanding and even subsequently amended the question in post #223, in an attempt to make the terms of the question perfectly clear to you. Are you now willing to respond to that? I'm afraid I'll have to take any refusal as your tacit acknowledgement that you can't....

When you can't argue your point adequately, just obfuscate and/or ignore - I see a future in politics for a spin doctor with your talent  :Wink:

----------


## MadPict

> So if someone is accused of a crime and they have a cast iron alibi they should keep quiet about it?


Only if it involves little grey men........

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

Has fred been abducted by MadPict's alien? We haven't heard from him in over 24 hours here......  ::

----------


## fred

> Has fred been abducted by MadPict's alien? We haven't heard from him in over 24 hours here......


Don't we get pushy when we are running with the clique, I have a life you know.

Respond to what? the total abandonment of logic, your attempts to bully me into answering your strawman argument or the cliques attempts to label me as a conspiracy theorist?

Three thousand died on 9/11, they and their families deserve the truth, they haven't had it yet. They deserve a full and impartial investigation into all aspects of the day and a full and indipendent inquiry with Whitehouse officials testifying under oath.

More than that number of workers and residents will die as a result of breathing toxic air after 9/11, air which their government said was safe when they knew full well that it wan't, among other things the towers contained 2,000 tons of white asbestos.

The BBC broadcast was just one of many anomalies which prove the official version of events wrong, the dead, the dying and their families deserve an explanation.

Take a look at the whole picture and it all makes sense, take your approach of starting with the conviction that the official version must be true then taking the anomalies one by one, finding any possibility whatsoever, no matter how unlikely, that the official story could be true, if all else fails claim someone faked the evidence, saying that that must be what happened then moving on to the next anomaly and doing the same makes no sense at all.

Who has gained from 9/11? Israel, the oil companies the arms industries the WTC leaseholder but most of all the proponents of a global American empire. The people who held all the key positions in the American government, the people who paid to put them there, they have been the only winners. The possibility of them being complicit should at least be considered not discounted as impossible while claiming the impossible official version happened.

----------


## golach

> Who has gained from 9/11? *Israel,* the oil companies the arms industries the WTC leaseholder but most of all the proponents of a global American empire. The people who held all the key positions in the American government, the people who paid to put them there, they have been the only winners. The possibility of them being complicit should at least be considered not discounted as impossible while claiming the impossible official version happened.


Oh No here we go again, been waiting for this to creep back in. Fred if anything you are becoming predictable  ::

----------


## MadPict

The clique has a new member? Did he complete the initiation? And has he got his "Org Clique" T-shirt?.......

How do you know they haven't had the truth? Maybe they believe that a bunch of terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into targets in the US on 9/11. Maybe they want to put the whole thing behind them and move on with their lives. Maybe they can't while the likes of Alex Jones and Professor S Jones (Now sacked from BYU for his crazy views) continue with their 'truthseeking'....

But wait! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted being the brains behind 9/11 and many other atrocities!!
_SOURCE - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...6452573.stm?ls_

How can that be - it was Bush along!!! Two brains? .......

I'm glad fred recognises that 3000 people died on 9/11 - or did they? Perhaps like the passegers and crew of Flight 93 they might be held in a secret location, having to live the rest of their lives out in isolation so they don't spill the beans about the pro Irsraeli Bush administrations evil money making act.... 

It took fred a few hours to compile that reply - I wonder if he had help. Maybe emailing his co-CT/truthseekers/9/11 denialists for advice? Or scouring the internet for some other slant to the whole event which no-one has thought of?

But no, he rolls out the tired old anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist* (delete as applicable) mish mash of an argument. You haven't rolled out the UFO on 9/11 yet - too crazy a theory?
http://www.orbwar.com/ufo-photos-wtc-attack-9-11.htm


Disclaimer: The above is not a personal attack on one individual (henceforth referred to as "an Orger") but rather a questioning of the collective attempts by many (henceforth known as "Conspiracy Theorists/Truthseekers/9-11 Denialists") to perpetuate the outlandish theories that the events of September 11th 2001 (henceforth referred to as "9-11") is totally incorrect (henceforth referred to as "bunkum").

----------


## Rheghead

9/11 simply occurred because of a terrorist act, Princess Diana simply died in a roadcrash brought on by alcohol, JFK simply died because of a lone nut with a gun.

People are just unhappy with the simplicity of reality so they have to make up stories.

----------


## fred

> But wait! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted being the brains behind 9/11 and many other atrocities!!
> _SOURCE - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ame...6452573.stm?ls_
> 
> Maybe he did plan the hijackings, we don't know. All we know is that after he was tortured in some Eastern European prison for three years and while America are holding his two sons, Yousef and Abed, aged 7 and 9 at the time of their arrest in 2002, the confession isn't worth a light.





> How can that be - it was Bush along!!! Two brains? .......


One and a half.

----------


## fred

> Oh No here we go again, been waiting for this to creep back in. Fred if anything you are becoming predictable


Another member of the clique along making personal attacks.

Are you saying that Israel did not benefit from 9/11 or are you just saying that everyone should keep quiet about it?

----------


## fred

> 9/11 simply occurred because of a terrorist act, Princess Diana simply died in a roadcrash brought on by alcohol, JFK simply died because of a lone nut with a gun.


Then why not just have a full inquiry including the things the other inquiries ignored and where the judges arn't appointed by the main beneficiaries of the crime.

----------


## Rheghead

> Then why not just have a full inquiry including the things the other inquiries ignored and where the judges arn't appointed by the main beneficiaries of the crime.


Well the weakness in your point of view is that you are convinced that a crime has been committed rather than it is worthy of having an inquiry to take place.  So the net outcome will either vindicate/unsupport your beliefs rather than find the factual truth.  Enjoy your new religion pal :Wink:

----------


## golach

> Another member of the clique along making personal attacks.
> 
> Are you saying that Israel did not benefit from 9/11 or are you just saying that everyone should keep quiet about it?


So anyone that does not believe you and your ilk is a clique Fred. I am not a member of any clique, more that I can say about you.
You re-introduced Israel into this thread as you have done previously in another thread and we all know the result of that one. I have no axe to grind with Israel.
What I am on about is your constant repitition of a now (in my eyes) a boring subject.

----------


## darkman

Trying to remain neutral in your debate but it strikes me that to have an intelligent discussion requires that everybody has done their research and know exactly what they are talking about.
Fred seems to have done his research in only one aspect and doesn't seem to be willing to even consider another version of events other than it was an act of treason but fair play to him as some people attacking his viewpoint have not come up with a convincing argument against 'his' theories other than to resort to personal insults about his credibility.
I would do some research on both viewpoints but can not be bothered and I suppose apathy is a good thing as far as governments are concerned.
I think fred has some valid points and also some cookie ideas but as they say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

----------


## fred

> So anyone that does not believe you and your ilk is a clique Fred. I am not a member of any clique, more that I can say about you.
> You re-introduced Israel into this thread as you have done previously in another thread and we all know the result of that one. I have no axe to grind with Israel.
> What I am on about is your constant repitition of a now (in my eyes) a boring subject.


If you find the subject boring don't click on the thread.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Don't we get pushy when we are running with the clique, I have a life you know.
> 
> Respond to what? the total abandonment of logic, your attempts to bully me into answering your strawman argument or the cliques attempts to label me as a conspiracy theorist?


Well that's two Boy Scouts badges completed.... bully AND clique member - and in one day too. Do I get anything for being in a clique? Don't I have to be initiated by someone? When does my membership card come? Am I allowed to be admitted into a clique without being consulted first, or does a singular nomination by fred suffice?

Anyway - I'll take this _personal attack_ as fred's tacit acknowledgement that he cannot answer my question from #223 - not that he _won't_, because I'm sure that he would if he could - but that he _can't._ Perhaps we ought to draw the curtain on this thread, as fred's now doing his best to drag the point away from WTC7 and use 9/11 to bash Israel again. Much Israel does requires to be bashed, however I just can't find it in me to believe that 9/11 is a stick that they're deserving of..... (I wish I could find a yawning smiley)

----------


## fred

> I think fred has some valid points and also some cookie ideas but as they say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


All I'm looking for is the truth, me and a lot of other people.

At first the Bush administration refused any investigation whatsoever, a group of relatives of people who died on 9/11 formed the Family Steering Committee and campaigned for an inquiry, it took them 14 months, 70% of the questions they wanted answered were not answered, much of the rest is clearly implausible, any evidence which contradicted the official story was ignored.

There are a lot of different theories out there, some of them seem cookie to me but I don't rule them out, I keep an open mind. The idea that three buildings not only collapsed but were reduced to dust as a result of damage from the planes and fire is clearly ludicrous. Of the other theories controlled demolition using thermate to weaken girders and explosives to bring the buildings down is the least cookie theory I have seen and the one which fits what can be seen in the videos and what was said by eye witnesses. It is quite plausible, the buildings leaseholder had a very good motive and the opportunity. The only argument against that I've seen which carries any weight is that even the planes, the fire, the thermate and explosives added together could not produce enough energy to result in what happened to the WTC on 9/11.

----------


## JAWS

> Perhaps we ought to draw the curtain on this thread, as fred's now doing his best to drag the point away from WTC7


What, and lose the best entertainment I've come across for a long time. I've not laughed so much since I saw "The Ministry of Silly Thought - sorry - Walks". 
As time goes on the sketches get sillier and sillier.  

The real truth about what actually happened is not difficult to discover. Those who really do know what happened are fully aware that it was all due to the Big Bad Wolf and his family. 
They huffed and they puffed and they blew them all down! 

Quite simple to explain once you have got to the Truth.

----------


## fred

> Anyway - I'll take this _personal attack_ as fred's tacit acknowledgement that he cannot answer my question from #223 - not that he _won't_, because I'm sure that he would if he could - but that he _can't._ Perhaps we ought to draw the curtain on this thread, as fred's now doing his best to drag the point away from WTC7 and use 9/11 to bash Israel again. Much Israel does requires to be bashed, however I just can't find it in me to believe that 9/11 is a stick that they're deserving of..... (I wish I could find a yawning smiley)


#223 is your strawman you answer it, I've never said the entire worlds media is involved in any conspiracy.

Who is this "*we*" who are going "*draw the curtain on this thread*"?

I used the word "Israel" once and you start screaming antisemitism, that is hardly any way to get to the truth. As it happens Israel was the chief suspect in the early days of the investigation, there is proof that they had prior knowledge of 9/11, five Israelies were the first arrested in connection with the attack and they were held for 71 days. At the very least it is known that they falsified evidence to make it look like Palestine was behind 9/11.

These are verifiable facts, the truth, you will ignore them you have no interest in truth, you can't explain how the BBC could report the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it fell, you can't explain the molten metal so you will accuse me of being an antisemite and somehow that will make the truth go away.

----------


## JAWS

For those who wish to verify the "Fact" that Israelis were thought to be involved and arrested simply try Googling *9/11 Israelis arrested* and check the results.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> #223 is your strawman you answer it...


That seems to be your usual tactic when you can't answer - where IS that yawning smiley when you need it most?




> I used the word "Israel" once and you start screaming antisemitism, that is hardly any way to get to the truth.


Where have I screamed anti-semitism - oh hang on, it must be that sentence where I said _"Much Israel does requires to be bashed..."_

Good job we have you there to keep our realities in check fred!!  :Wink:  Or are you going off on a tangent to evade the point? Surely not.....

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> For those who wish to verify the "Fact" that Israelis were thought to be involved and arrested simply try Googling *9/11 Israelis arrested* and check the results.


Oh dear.... surely fred hasn't looked up a conspiracy site and believed everything he read just because it's a conspiracy theory? Surely not.....

----------


## fred

> For those who wish to verify the "Fact" that Israelis were thought to be involved and arrested simply try Googling *9/11 Israelis arrested* and check the results.


And you will find that everything I said is true.

Are you claiming it didn't happen? Have you anything useful to add to this thread or are you just here to make up the cliques numbers?

----------


## fred

> 9/11 simply occurred because of a terrorist act, Princess Diana simply died in a roadcrash brought on by alcohol, JFK simply died because of a lone nut with a gun.


And Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction, really was making a nuclear bomb, really was allied with Al Qaeda?




> People are just unhappy with the simplicity of reality so they have to make up stories.


I haven't made anything up, I just state facts and ask for explanations.

----------


## Rheghead

> And Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction,


Yes he did, ask his old pal chemical ali about them.

He was planning on building a big gun to deploy the nuke as well.

----------


## fred

> Good job we have you there to keep our realities in check fred!!  Or are you going off on a tangent to evade the point? Surely not.....


Talking of evading points you seem to have totally ignored my question Who is this "*we*" who are going to "*draw the curtain on this thread*"?

----------


## JAWS

> And you will find that everything I said is true.
> 
> Are you claiming it didn't happen? Have you anything useful to add to this thread or are you just here to make up the cliques numbers?


I found sources alright. They are there for anybody else to have a look at. 
That fairly easy check just leads straight to the same old "Conspiracy" sites. 

Al-Jazeera, which, of course is totally unbiased source, bases it's story about the Israelis on one article by a reporter for the "Austin American-Statesman", a local paper, written in November 2001. 
Other sites quote the same single source. 

As for having anything useful to say? Well, if that means do I intend to accept the ever more ridiculous inventions dreamt up by  people who are by now scraping the bottom of the barrel in the hope that somebody, somewhere might just take them seriously, then, no, I have nothing to say to support them. 

Clique? What Clique? Please say who the members of the "Clique" are. I hate being in a "clique" when I don't know who I am being Cliquish with.

----------


## octane

Heres an old email i have from years ago regarding the number 11 theory. Do the little task at the end!!!!!!!


1) New York City has 11 letters
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy
the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.

This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5=11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9+1+1=11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9+1+1=11.
Sheer coincidence..?!

Read on and make up your own mind:

1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2+5+4=11.
2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2+5+4=11.
3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3+1+1+2+4 =11.
4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.

Now this is where things get totally eerie:

The most recognised symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

''For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allahand lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace." 

That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.

Still unconvinced about all of this..?! 

 Try this and see how you feel afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:

Open Microsoft Word and do the following:
1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.
2. Highlight the Q33 NY.
3. Change the font size to 48.
4. Change the actual font to WINGDINGS

What do you think now..?!

----------


## MadPict

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/wingdings-911.html





> ....where IS that yawning smiley when you need it most?


Here....

----------


## MadPict

Here are some more figures...

9th and 11th posts in this thread are by fred.
9th post on page 11 is by Rheghead.

There are four letters in "fred" and eight in "Rheghead" - 4+8=12 - there are 12 months in the year.

I'll look for some more....

----------


## fred

> Yes he did, ask his old pal chemical ali about them.
> 
> He was planning on building a big gun to deploy the nuke as well.


So where are these weapons of mass destruction? Why haven't they been found?

The fact is that the Bush administration lied and fabricated evidence in order to manufacture consent for an illegal invasion of an oil rich country. As a result of this going on for a million Iraqi civillians, 3,210 American servicemen and 133 British servicemen have died needlessly.

This is the same Bush administration which appointed the 9/11 Commission.

----------


## MadPict

The "Bull" supergun?.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2477023.stm

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Talking of evading points you seem to have totally ignored my question Who is this "*we*" who are going to "*draw the curtain on this thread*"?


Sorry for confusing you again fred - by "*we*" I mean _everybody_ - including you - or were you worried that you were being excluded from my newly established _clique?_  ::

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> The "Bull" supergun?.......
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2477023.stm


I'm disappointed in you MadPict. Imagine falling shamelessly for such obviously manufactured propaganda that would allow the west to believe that the late lamented Saddam's intentions were less than honourable.

----------


## MadPict

Well I think it was just a bit of oil pipe myself - strapping a gun to a mountain makes it a bit hard to aim....

----------


## golach

> The "Bull" supergun?.......
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2477023.stm


The CBI at the time were howling for the Customs Officer, who found and stopped the Beeg Gun, blood, they wanted him put on suspention and dismissed. Luckily he was not :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> The fact is that the Bush administration lied and fabricated evidence in order to manufacture consent for an illegal invasion of an oil rich country.


Like faking photographs eh? ::

----------


## fred

> The CBI at the time were howling for the Customs Officer, who found and stopped the Beeg Gun, blood, they wanted him put on suspention and dismissed. Luckily he was not


The directors of Churchill Redman told the police they were acting on the instructions of MI5, the British government said they wern't. In court the directors provided proof that they were indeed acting on the instructions of MI5, the case was stopped.

The British government were prepared to commit perjury and see inocent men go to prison to cover themselves.

----------


## fred

> Like faking photographs eh?


It's bad enough JAWS behaving like a schoolgirl without you starting.

That the American and British governments lied to manufacture consent for an illegal war is a matter of record.

----------


## Rheghead

> It's bad enough JAWS behaving like a schoolgirl without you starting.
> 
> That the American and British governments lied to manufacture consent for an illegal war is a matter of record.


Please state where the US and/orUK  have admitted to lying in manufacturing a case for war.  Yet you ignore the fact that the anti-bushies are making up information?

----------


## fred

> Please state where the US and/orUK  have admitted to lying in manufacturing a case for war.  Yet you ignore the fact that the anti-bushies are making up information?


If the test for a liar was whether they admit to it or not then there would be no liars. The test for a liar is if what they say turns out not to be true and it can be shown that they knew that when they said it.

You seem to have the same contempt for truth as the Bush administration has, you seem to think, as they do, that it can be manufactured, you seem to share their insane belief that deniability is the same as innocence.

Just last week a senior White House official, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice over the Bush Aministration's persectuion of a man who pointed out that what they were saying about Saddam buying uranium from South Africa was lies.

Yet confessions extracted with torture are seen as proof absolute, I look at the western world and wonder how we could have sunk so low, how we could have abandoned the very principles of civilisation. A former Senior Security Advisor to the Whitehouse in the Carter administration said that Bush and his administration suffer from Manichian Paranoia, they believe we are good and Islam is evil, they see themselves as morally superior and believe that moral superiority justifies immoral acts. Manichian Paranoia seems to be contageous.

----------


## Rheghead

I don't believe that there is a strong case that the Bush administration has actually manufactured evidence for war.  Yet what I do see is anti-bushies making up fake photographs and lying about the Bush administration.

----------


## fred

> I don't believe that there is a strong case that the Bush administration has actually manufactured evidence for war.  Yet what I do see is anti-bushies making up fake photographs and lying about the Bush administration.


You believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.

May I remind you of the leaked Downing Street Memo  dated 23rd July 2002. Particularly the following paragraph:




> "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."


Note "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Here is where you claim the meeting never took place and that the memo is a forgery I suppose, you will carry on ignoring evidence and making such ridiulous claims till Hell freezes over, you have no interest in truth, just in deniability.

----------


## Rheghead

> You believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.
> 
> May I remind you of the leaked Downing Street Memo  dated 23rd July 2002. Particularly the following paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> Note "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
> 
> Here is where you claim the meeting never took place and that the memo is a forgery I suppose, you will carry on ignoring evidence and making such ridiulous claims till Hell freezes over, you have no interest in truth, just in deniability.


Sorry but I just don't see any evidence there that Bush lied.  Keeping going fred, you are amusing.

----------


## rambler

In 2002/03 the US and UK governments constantly claimed that they had *sure proof* that Iraq has WMDs. As there were no WMDs at that time in Iraq, there cannot have been any sure proof about WMDs being there. 
If there was no sure proof, the only logical consequence is that the US and UK governments have spread misinformation and lied. 

They have lied to start a war.

----------


## Rheghead

> In 2002/03 the US and UK governments constantly claimed that they had *sure proof* that Iraq has WMDs. As there were no WMDs at that time in Iraq, there cannot have been any sure proof about WMDs being there. 
> If there was no sure proof, the only logical consequence is that the US and UK governments have spread misinformation and lied. 
> 
> They have lied to start a war.


I cannot remember US/UK making any such claims of sure proof at all but they did make a good case for war based on information that was available at the time.  The fact that Saddam wasn't cooperating only served to fuel suspicions.  I don't think sure proof was needed/required before war could be started.

Anyway to say a falsehood is not enough evidence for lying, you need to prove that they knew it was a falsehood at the time before you can prove that Bush/Blair lied.

Your logic is thus seriously flawed...

----------


## rambler

> I cannot remember US/UK making any such claims of sure proof at all but they did make a good case for war based on information that was available at the time. The fact that Saddam wasn't cooperating only served to fuel suspicions. I don't think sure proof was needed/required before war could be started.
> 
> Anyway to say a falsehood is not enough evidence for lying, you need to prove that they knew it was a falsehood at the time before you can prove that Bush/Blair lied.
> 
> Your logic is thus seriously flawed...


I can fairly well remember the claims that the US and UK government *knew* that there are WMDs in Iraq. The *sure proof* they claimed to have was claimed to be so secret they could not show to anyone. They told lies and commited the worst crime that is - they started a war - based on those lies. 

They told the UN security council that they *know* of WMDs. 

They also clamed that Iraq was a safe harbour for Al Quaida. It is well established by now that this claim was also a lie, unless Bush and Blair really believed in it. They probably didn't, they lied. 

Rheghead if you can't remember those claims that does not mean they weren't made. The news were full of those claims and everyone who doubted them was branded a coward. Having been in New York during the run up to the war I can fairly well remember what was going on. 
Nothing but lies from Bush and Blair.

----------


## fred

> Rheghead if you can't remember those claims that does not mean they weren't made. The news were full of those claims and everyone who doubted them was branded a coward. Having been in New York during the run up to the war I can fairly well remember what was going on. 
> Nothing but lies from Bush and Blair.


Have you considered the possibility that Rheghead does remember those claims, that he not only supports the decision to invade Iraq but also approves of the methods used to justify it?

----------


## darkman

I'm just wondering why, when the allied forces eventually took control of iraq did they not plant evidence of iraq having wmds?
It just seems strange that if they used a false claim that saddam had wmds so that they could go to war and invade then why didn't they give the story creedence by planting evidence!

----------


## rambler

> I'm just wondering why, when the allied forces eventually took control of iraq did they not plant evidence of iraq having wmds?
> It just seems strange that if they used a false claim that saddam had wmds so that they could go to war and invade then why didn't they give the story creedence by planting evidence!


Victor's arrogance might be the explanation to that. After all when Bush gave his infamous "mission accomplished" speech he apparenly didn't expect any further problems to arise in that part of the world. Granted, Bush may be a moron, but I would have thought that Blair knew better.

----------


## rambler

> Have you considered the possibility that Rheghead does remember those claims, that he not only supports the decision to invade Iraq but also approves of the methods used to justify it?


I have no doubt that Rheghead does remember those claims. Why he denies that those and other things happened puzzles me. That invasion of Iraq was against international law and therefore it was illegal. Everybody engaged in an illegal war or supporting an illegal war is guilty to some respect of all of the crimes that happen in a war, i.e. torture, murder, rape, child abuse to name but a few. 
I was verbally abused by those in favour of the war before it started. So where hundreds of thousands of peacefully demonstrating people in US and UK, but still those guys like Rheghead et al still think they were right in making the case for war.
You can stretch the law to some extend, but what happend with the invasion of Iraq was clearly illegal according to international law. 
There is still hope that once the current prime minister leaves office that he will brought to The Hague. I must say, I hope he will get the chance of an open and fair trial so he can defend his case and defend his innocence; or can he?

----------


## fred

> I'm just wondering why, when the allied forces eventually took control of iraq did they not plant evidence of iraq having wmds?
> It just seems strange that if they used a false claim that saddam had wmds so that they could go to war and invade then why didn't they give the story creedence by planting evidence!


Because that's what everyone was expecting them to do, including me.

There was an ex Pentagon employee who said they tried but botched the operation when the team doing the planting was killed by friendly fire, sounds plausible.

----------


## Rheghead

> I can fairly well remember the claims that the US and UK government *knew* that there are WMDs in Iraq. The *sure proof* they claimed to have was claimed to be so secret they could not show to anyone. They told lies and commited the worst crime that is - they started a war - based on those lies. 
> 
> They told the UN security council that they *know* of WMDs. 
> 
> They also clamed that Iraq was a safe harbour for Al Quaida. It is well established by now that this claim was also a lie, unless Bush and Blair really believed in it. They probably didn't, they lied. 
> 
> Rheghead if you can't remember those claims that does not mean they weren't made. The news were full of those claims and everyone who doubted them was branded a coward. Having been in New York during the run up to the war I can fairly well remember what was going on. 
> Nothing but lies from Bush and Blair.


The UK/US alliance were making a case for war based on evidence available.  They never made any of it up, they suspected that there was WMDs and that was perfectly feasible based on the evidence available at the time.  They *knew* that there was sufficient grounds to suspect that WMDs existed in Iraq, irrespective of whether that they existed or not.  That in itself is neither sufficient grounds to say that Bush or Blair actually lied, though I never thought that their case for war was beyond reasonable doubt, it was flawed but not falsified.

As for Iraq/Al Quaeda links, it is not in doubt that AQ reps met Iraq reps, so how can you say that they weren't linked? ::  Jeepers, Rumsfeldt met Saddam so Iraq were linked to the US surely???

----------


## JAWS

> It's bad enough JAWS behaving like a schoolgirl without you starting.


What a particularly "sexist" comment, fred. Is that really the best you can do?

----------


## rambler

> The UK/US alliance were making a case for war based on evidence available. They never made any of it up, they suspected that there was WMDs and that was perfectly feasible based on the evidence available at the time. ...


That argument won't stand up in any court. How do you know they didn't make up evidence? UK and US governments continuously bullied the UN weapons inspectors because Hans Blix and his team couldn't verify all those false claims about WMDs. During the final days before the invasion, Iraq has fully co-operated with the UN and Blix has asked for more time to do his job. Unfortunately that wish was not granted by some war mongers.

Are you aware that most countries of the UN opposed the invasion as they were not convinced that Iraq posed a threat based on the evidence available. Only to think of Powell's lousy presentation of evidence to the security council makes me sick. There were no WMDs and there was no reliable evidence about any. This was verified by the weapons inspectors.

The "coalition of the brave" got their judgement wrong and as a result they started a war. And they based this war on lies.

----------


## fred

> The UK/US alliance were making a case for war based on evidence available.


No they were not. They did what you have been doing in this thread, just ignored all the evidence they didn't want to see and invented what they did want to see.

As the Downing Street Memo says they fixed the inteligence around the policy not the policy around the inteligence. Hans Blix, the head of the UN Weapons Inspectorate said they altered the reports, Joseph Wilson said the claim of uraniun from South Africa had already been discredited when Bush made it, Dr David Kelly said the claim of mobile weapons laboratories was already proven false when it was made.

Everyone knew, including the British and American governments, that Iraq was not a threat. Everyone knew that the motive for the invasion was regime change not weapons of mass destruction.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

You know, people might click on this link under the misapprehension that there was some sort of discussion going on around WTC7.....  ::

----------


## MadPict

Well that topic has been done to death and I think that the views for the accepted version of the collapse have won the day - fred has obviously run out of places he can find his "truth" and has diverted the discussion away from it.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

fred? Straying off the thread? Shurely shome mishtake....  ::

----------


## fred

> You know, people might click on this link under the misapprehension that there was some sort of discussion going on around WTC7.....


I wondered how long it would be till one of the control freak clique would be here dictating what we can talk about.

----------


## fred

> Well that topic has been done to death and I think that the views for the accepted version of the collapse have won the day - fred has obviously run out of places he can find his "truth" and has diverted the discussion away from it.


Oh look, another one.

So how did the BBC broadcast a report of a building collapsing 20 minutes before it collapsed then?

----------


## MadPict

Oh, this must be our meeting place....





Time to change the record fred - this one is stuck-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k......

----------


## JAWS

And all the millions of people watching the broadcast just happened to miss the "deliberate mistake". And nobody happened to notice it until six years later. 

The whole world is stupid except for the chosen few. Sounds like the birth of a new religion. 
"Join the chosen few and receive enlightenment at their hands!" 

Next they will want us to believe we can all be transported to a passing comet. 
In fact, that might even be a more convincing story!

----------


## fred

> Time to change the record fred - this one is stuck-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k......


The clique do enjoy telling people what to do.

I'll go back to showing how Rheghead is as wrong about events preceding the Iraq war as he is about events on 9/11 then.

----------


## MadPict

JAWS,
Would that be the Comet Clique?  ::

----------


## fred

> And all the millions of people watching the broadcast just happened to miss the "deliberate mistake". And nobody happened to notice it until six years later.


Obviously someone noticed or the satelite link would not have conveniently failed and the BBCs records would not have mysteriously disappeared 




> The whole world is stupid except for the chosen few.


No, I think you are in the minority.

----------


## JAWS

I can't be in a minority, I am certainly not one of the chosen few who can "see" things the rest of the World fails to notice. 

I wonder why nobody in the whole world noticed the error for six whole years. 
Six whole years and not one media outlet in the whole world, and that includes the media of all those countries who would have immediately made good use of it for propaganda purposes, happened to "discover" this glaring "proof" of the BBC's "complicity" in the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. 

What a dozy bunch they must be. Of course, if there was nothing there to find during that six years then all would be explained. Basically, they didn't find it because there was nothing there to be found in the first place. 
Unless, of course, every single journalist and reporter in the whole world was involved in the "cover up". 

The plot thickens, those involved in the cover up now runs into tens of millions of people World-wide.  

I will set everybody's mind at rest about at least one person. I swear that I was not part of the cover up, but at this rate I must be just about the only person who isn't.

----------


## golach

Where have we heard all this before Yawn!!!!!

http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...highlight=wtc7

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> I wondered how long it would be till one of the control freak clique would be here dictating what we can talk about.


It strikes me that if someone wanted to discuss the rights and wrongs of the US/UK led invasion of Iraq, then they should consider the possibility of launching a thread titled as such. What a novel idea! Instead, people now come to WTC7 to find fred continually bleating on about Iraq (confused? You will be after this week's episode of '_fred' _ ).

And despite criticising others for the same alleged misconduct, fred's tactic when he can't think of a suitable or witty riposte is to berate other posters. It strikes me he may have anger management issues....

----------


## JAWS

> Where have we heard all this before Yawn!!!!!
> 
> http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...highlight=wtc7


Don't spoil it Golach, it gets more comical with every thread. I'm still waiting for somebody to blame the Little Green Men from Area 51. 
The real truth is that it never really happened and it was all filmed at a secret studio way out in the desert somewhere, or was that a different set of conspiracies?

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

*Part of the conspiracy?*
Richard Porter27 Feb 07, 05:12 PMThe 9/11 conspiracy theories are pretty well known by now. The BBC addressed them earlier this month with a documentary, The Conspiracy Files, shown within the UK. 
Until now, I don't think we've been accused of being part of the conspiracy. But now some websites are using news footage from BBC World on September 11th 2001 to suggest we were actively participating in some sort of attempt to manipulate the audience. As a result, we're now getting lots of emails asking us to clarify our position. So here goes:
*1.* We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
*2.* In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
*3.* Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
*4.* We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
*5.* If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "
_Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World_

This is from this website, so if you want to follow the link, please do so. Of course it's written by a BBC employee, who, by definition, is in on the conspiracy and it is thereby flawed as a credible rebuttal of the _real_ events of the day.

----------


## fred

> This is from this website, so if you want to follow the link, please do so. Of course it's written by a BBC employee, who, by definition, is in on the conspiracy and it is thereby flawed as a credible rebuttal of the _real_ events of the day.


Oh I use that web site a lot I find them very informative, this was very informative indeed, it's one of their policy statements.




> Media Management Policy Ref 01_01
> Components to be Retained:
> - Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output - one to be stored on a separate site as a master
> - One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
> - All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
> - A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
> - Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the media
> 
> Media Management Policy Ref 04-01
> All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use.


Someone must have been very careless indeed to lose three copies of a broadcast stored in three different places one of them a secure master.

----------


## fred

> I can't be in a minority, I am certainly not one of the chosen few who can "see" things the rest of the World fails to notice.


You can see the video of the broadcast, you can see the BBC response where they do not deny that the video was genuine.

This is how normal people build a picture of the universe they live in, photons hit the retina, sound waves hit the eardrum, impulses are sent to the brain which does its best to make sense out of them.

Some people do not use these impulses to form a picture of the universe they live in, they discount them and build a picture entirely inside their heads with no regard for sensory input, there is a name for these people.

----------


## fred

> It strikes me that if someone wanted to discuss the rights and wrongs of the US/UK led invasion of Iraq, then they should consider the possibility of launching a thread titled as such.


If someone had followed the thread they would see that the two matters are closely related, i.e. how can an administration which lied and falsified evidence to manufacture consent for an illegal invasion be trusted to run an inquiry into 9/11.

If it hadn't been for Rheghead's stonewalling tactics of denial of everything it would have ended there.

----------


## fred

> Where have we heard all this before Yawn!!!!!
> 
> http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...highlight=wtc7


There are other threads which might be more to your tastes. Many of them do not interest me but I don't keep butting in to whinge about it.

----------


## scorrie

Fred, you have nothing that would stand up in a court of law. Imagine someone on trial for murder, the prosecution produce a photo from the internet in evidence, along with some "documents" from the internet. How far would they get with that? 

Case dismissed.

Even if it WERE all true, nobody cares. Tesco is in Wick, God is in his heaven and we are all looking forward to the search for Joseph.

People love to play japes. Bigfoot videos, photos of Nessie, fairies, ghosts, spaghetti trees, Jesus' face on a slice of bread.

I leave you with a Family Fortunes question:-

"Name something which some people believe to exist but which cannot be scientifically proven?"

Contestant's answer:- " A driving licence!!"

----------


## fred

> Fred, you have nothing that would stand up in a court of law.


How many people who discus anything on an internet forum have?

The evidence is there in the form of the video, any evidence that the video is fake I have not seen nor have I seen the BBC make any claim that the video is not genuine or was not broadcast as stated.

Why are you prepared to accept the completely unsubstantiated ramblings of the clique but anything I say I have to provide evidence which will stand up in a court of law?

----------


## MadPict

> Why are you prepared to accept the completely unsubstantiated ramblings of the clique but anything I say I have to provide evidence which will stand up in a court of law?


Perhaps that should read "Why should we accept the completely unsubstantiated ramblings of a supporter of 9/11 conspiracy theories whose evidence would not stand up in a court of law?".........

----------


## Rheghead

> How do you know they didn't make up evidence? .


The easy answer to that is 'How do you know that they did?' ::

----------


## golach

> There are other threads which might be more to your tastes. Many of them do not interest me but I don't keep butting in to whinge about it.


Oh my a new word, whinge, is that the same as clique?
And I dont think you know what my tastes are Fred

----------


## Kaishowing

> Oh my a new word, whinge, is that the same as clique?


Why do conspriacy theory topics seem to always degenerate into people throwing around condescending comments like this?

It's obvious that those who believe that there was something underhand about 9/11 will continue to do so, and conversely those who believe the official version will carry on doing so.
Surely we can agree to disagree without posts getting snide, no matter who said what first.

Personally I think there's a far deeper scandal surrounding how the aftermath was dealt with rather than the events of 9/11 itself.
How freedoms have been eroded in the name of security, and how even a modern politically corect culture can simultaneously display fascist charateristics.

----------


## rambler

> The easy answer to that is 'How do you know that they did?'


What about the WMDs they claimed to knew all about? What about Powell's presentation to the security council, what about the 45 minute claim, what about Iraq's nuclear tubes, ...?

There is overwhelming evidence that the US/UK governments have lied to their people.

----------


## darkman

It still seems that even after the hutton report there are still serious doubts as to whether dr david kelly commited suicide or not.

----------


## fred

> What about the WMDs they claimed to knew all about? What about Powell's presentation to the security council, what about the 45 minute claim, what about Iraq's nuclear tubes, ...?
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence that the US/UK governments have lied to their people.


That's the problem.




> "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ..."
> 
> Adolf Hitler 1925

----------


## JAWS

I see Old Adolf had the Conspiracy Addicts well weighed up!  ::

----------


## scorrie

> How many people who discus anything on an internet forum have?


That is a desperate reply. Please stick to this topic. You are putting forward supposedly solid evidence (or is that liquid evidence ;o)) and I am pointing out that part of it is a photo from the internet. How much credence can anyone give to such an item? I would say zero.

Now, that has nothing whatever to do with anything else that may be discussed anywhere else in the universe and, unless your marbles have been abducted by aliens, you will be perfectly aware that you are clutching at straws (or strawmen)

You are now talking gibberish about cliques. I am most definitely outwith any clique that may exist, unless that clique is the part of the human race able to make logical, rational opinions without trawling the web for the latest fairy tales.

----------


## Rheghead

> What about the WMDs they claimed to knew all about? What about Powell's presentation to the security council, what about the 45 minute claim, what about Iraq's nuclear tubes, ...?
> 
> There is overwhelming evidence that the US/UK governments have lied to their people.


As I said before, I haven't seen anything that suggested the UK/US alliance leaders actually _knew_ that WMDs existed in a preinvasion Iraq.  They only had to give a good case for war on suspicion that WMDs existed.  Actual proof wasn't needed, if it were then an invasion wouldn't have been needed.  The 45 minute thing was just a generic time that any missile based system could hit western forces, it could have been true or it might not have been, but it wasn't a lie because it was generic to systems that exist elsewhere.

----------


## fred

> As I said before, I haven't seen anything that suggested the UK/US alliance leaders actually _knew_ that WMDs existed in a preinvasion Iraq.


They seemed to be suggesting that.




> Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> Dick Cheney August 26, 2002





> Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
> 
> George W. Bush September 12, 2002





> We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
> 
> Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003





> Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
> 
> George W. Bush January 28, 2003





> We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
> 
> Colin Powell February 5, 2003





> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
> 
> George Bush March 18, 2003





> Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
> 
> Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003





> There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
> 
> Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003





> We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
> 
> Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003





> Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.
> 
> Adolf Hitler 1925

----------


## Rheghead

> They seemed to be suggesting that.


Well let us suppose that those quotes aren't fake, they couldn't prove it.  But those quotes do make my point that Bush didn't lie if he was speaking with such conviction that WMDs did exist though they just had to create enough suspicion that WMDs existed.  You couldn't say they lied, they just made a very good case for war built on their own beliefs/intelligence inorder to build an alliance.

Like it or not, but Bush will go down in history as being remembered as a visionary for starting democracy in the Arab world.

----------


## fred

> That is a desperate reply. Please stick to this topic. You are putting forward supposedly solid evidence (or is that liquid evidence ;o)) and I am pointing out that part of it is a photo from the internet. How much credence can anyone give to such an item? I would say zero.


You say the photo must be fake because it was on the internet?

----------


## fred

> Well let us suppose that those quotes aren't fake, they couldn't prove it,  they just had to create enough suspicion that WMDs existed or they actually believed that WMDs existed, and they did a very good.  You couldn't say they lied, they just made a very good case for war built on their own beliefs/intelligence inorder to build an alliance.


I could say they lied because that is what they did.

Wars are horrible beyond belief, people lose lives people lose limbs people lose loved ones people lose homes and livelyhoods. Not just a few people but millions of people. That is why war should only be used as a very last resort when you are certain that your country is being threatened. Neither America nor Britain were threatened by Iraq and our governments knew it, they deliberately lied to manufacture consent for an illegal war.

----------


## Rheghead

> I could say they lied because that is what they did.


If you believe that then that is your prerogative, but you cannot prove it.  They did tell a falsehood and all the evidence points to the fact that they actually believed it which means they didn't lie.

Similiarly, I cannot accuse you of lying because you actually believe all this conspiracy tripe, yet none of it stands up to closer scrutiny...

----------


## George Brims

OK I'm going to put in my tuppence worth here (probably going to regret it but never mind). 

On the WTC business, I believe Fred is totally wrong. 

On whether or not the Bush administration lied (*knowingly* lied) to justify invading Iraq, I believe he is right. 

Unfortunately they are lying again to try to justify attacking Iran next, but fortunately they don't seem to be believed as widely this time. Possibly the display of "Iranian-made" weapons with writing in English on them (and the "date of manufacture" written in US month-day-year format!) has made people a little more skeptical.

----------


## fred

> If you believe that then that is your prerogative, but you cannot prove it.  They did tell a falsehood and all the evidence points to the fact that they actually believed it which means they didn't lie.


No that, if it were true, would mean they were stupid enough to believe their own lies.

Joseph Wilson went to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam had been trying to buy uranium, he came back and handed in his report saying that there was no evidence and it probably wasn't true, Bush says in his State of the Union address "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

In 1999 the IAEA reported to the UN Security Council "Uranium enrichment by centrifuge: the IAEA considers that it is unlikely that the aluminium tubes Iraq attempted to import were for use in centrifuge enrichment.", Bush says in his 2003 State of the Union Address "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

That evidence says he lied.




> Similiarly, I cannot accuse you of lying because you actually believe all this conspiracy tripe, yet none of it stands up to closer scrutiny...


But I have never claimed to believe in any conspiracy tripe, that's just something I get accused of.

----------


## MadPict

Surprise surprise -- link goes to the site of the High Bishop of Truthseekers, Alex Jones - bound to be undeniably accurate then......

----------


## Rheghead

> They do say only extremely intelligent people are capable of true doublespeak. For which Rheghead should be given a blue ribbon.
> 
> 
> We have posters who post twice in this 300+ thread only to say, "Your opinion or view would not stand up in court, so shut up, sit down and let me ridicule you for "changing topic" from WTC 7 to Iraq WMDs and the poster contributes NOTHING to the thread him/herself! Hello?
> Hello?.


You are so funny, you don't even realise that you are committing the same thing.  Please step forward, I have a Blue ribbon for you....

----------


## Rheghead

> But I have never claimed to believe in any conspiracy tripe, that's just something I get accused of.


You can't be accused of lying because you know to be true all this rubbishy conspiracy stuff.  The truth of it is that you have Faith that Bush lied so your beliefs have become what you know.

I even save you from the accusation of lying, if I went by your definition, you would have to answer to an accusation of lying. ::

----------


## MadPict

Of course it matters - these people are perpetuating this ridiculous set of conspiracy theories for their own self publicising reasons. They post their versions of the events and the gullible read it and believe it. They hate their government so much they would believe that Bush is a cyborg if the likes of Alex Jones told them....

Being British doesn't make you immune from the belief in the 9/11 conspiracy movement....

----------


## Kaishowing

> Being British doesn't make you immune from the belief in the 9/11 conspiracy movement....


Especially when Bush and Blair are joined at the hip.
If you believe the former British Ambasador to Washington  who was eyewitness to the event, Bush and Blair agreed to attack Iraq and remove Saddam at a dinner meeting on the 20th September 2001, when Blair was there to pledge the country's support after the attack 9 days previously.*

So 18 months before troops launched Gulf War #2 it was decided that Saddam would go. 
How to get the world to accept it??? 
Hmmmmm...perhaps misinformation and alarming but ultimately false intel reports?
The whole current Iraq war is based on pure sophistry which was fed to us by heads of state who bend the truth for a living. Small wonder that anything they say is treated with disdain, including the 'official' version of 9/11.
Was there a conspiracy surrounding 9/11?? I don't think so....but I do think that some politicians jumped at the chance to use the events of 9/11 to serve their own agenda, while others were awake well into 10/11 burning papers that connected them to anyone vaguely involved with the attacks.
The whole post 9/11 situation stinks with an air of self-serving hypocrisy.

*http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...185407,00.html

----------


## JAWS

> North side photos of the not so inferno inferno in WTC 7.
> http://infowars.net/articles/march20...7building7.htm
> 
> (disclaimer: no, I do not have a sworn & signed affidavit to prove this matter in a court of law... therefore we must assume immediately the following photaes are fake .)
> 
> Please estimate the amount of sarcasm you deem fit to comprehend my manner. Ditch yer c clamp.


According to the site "Photographs taken on the afternoon of 9/11 have recently (_Mysteriously? Having been missing for six years yet again? JAWS_)emerged on the web." 

The photos are quite possibly genuine but that doesn't make the interpretation put on them to also be accurate. 

Again, yet another supposedly glaring "error" about what really happened which has gone completely unnoticed by the whole of the worlds Media and the thousands of people who must have been eye-witnesses. 
"The only person on the Parade who was in step was our Hamish!" 
Sounds about right! 

Sorry to disappoint you but it's not even worth bothering with sarcasm over something so pathetic.  :: 
Do please try to find something which at least appears plausible. 

Another totally unbiased piece of reporting by the same Paul Watson who wrote your link about the WTC also proves interesting, 

“The first inconsistency to emerge, and to date the most compelling, is that of advance warning and prior knowledge.”

“So I put the call in to my brother and we were covering the incident, trawling the news wires, watching the live broadcasts within minutes of the first explosion, because that's what we do. We have watched relentlessly as the official story has been pieced together, and this looks, smells and tastes like another government operation. Already, within hours, there are multiple inconsistencies and contradictions which must be highlighted now before they disappear down the memory hole.”

Well, yes, we all know that there are numerous allegations of that being the case about 9/11. 
But on this occasion he is writing about the London Tube Bombings. And he just happens to know that the Israelis are involved in that also. 

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/317861.html

He even claims that he knew it was a huge Conspiracy as soon as it happened. He must have been polishing his crystal ball very hard that morning.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> North side photos of the not so inferno inferno in WTC 7.
> http://infowars.net/articles/march20...7building7.htm
> 
> (disclaimer: no, I do not have a sworn & signed affidavit to prove this matter in a court of law... therefore we must assume immediately the following photaes are fake .)


Can I refer you to my earlier post no #213 regarding the eyewitness testimony of Captain Chris Boyle of the NYFD, which as far as I can see totally negates any argument being postulated regarding the structural integrity or lack of fires within WTC7. A quote from your link above states *"Remember that firefighters were at no point engaged in tackling the fires inside building"* but I, for one, would attribute the accuracy of this quote to pure semantics - the fire crews might not have been _inside_ WTC7, however they were absolutely definitely _outside_ the building attempting to use a severely impaired water supply to fight the fire. Attempts which met no success. It is evident though that Captain Boyle was about to deploy his crew _into_ WTC7 but was advised against it, due to ongoing concerns over the structural integrity of the building.  Of course, Captain Boyle, having lost many colleagues - many _friends_ - that day, would make a perfect conspirator to assist in covering up US Government involvement in 9/11. To quote roy, "Please estimate the amount of sarcasm you deem fit to comprehend my manner."

Photographs, doctored or otherwise, do not tell a story - they provide a snapshot in time that do not narrate the events preceding nor the events following the photograph being taken. Photographic context is entirely subjective and different people will judge different things from the same photo, depending on their individual viewpoints.

Incidentally, knowing nothing about demolition, would a controlled demolition lead to a partial collapse of WTC7 (from the top of the building) some 6 seconds preceding the entire building coming down? Because that's what happened! I ask the question in all sincerity and wouldn't mind an input from somebody suitably qualified to answer. As I keep banging on about questions surrounding the building's structural integrity, it seems to me (a devout layman!) that the partial collapse scenario might be more consistent with a weakening of the structure rather than the controlled demolition theory.

----------


## fred

> You can't be accused of lying because you know to be true all this rubbishy conspiracy stuff.  The truth of it is that you have Faith that Bush lied so your beliefs have become what you know.
> 
> I even save you from the accusation of lying, if I went by your definition, you would have to answer to an accusation of lying.


I posted a link to a video and asked a question, how could the BBC broadcast a report of the collapse of a building which was still standing? That question has still not been answered.

I ask where the energy came from to melt steel, reduce concrete to dust, hurl steel girders horizontally, make buildings fall at near freefall speed. The question has still not been answered.

I ask for a full and indipendent inquiry into all the events of 9/11, which will look at all the evidence and consider every possibility. An inquiry where all witnesses testify under oath and are not threatened or blackmailed into saying what the White House wants them to say.

I have shown that the American government was involved in a conspiracy, a conspiracy to invade a defenceless country illegaly, I have shown that they lied and falsified evidence both before and after the act. Plans for three events which supposedly happened as a result of 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and the Patriot Act are known to have preceeded 9/11.

I'm not telling a lie I'm asking for the truth, so far there has only been a cover up.




> It's about time conservative idiots like Steve Kelly and Rod Musgrove got a dose of reality. Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama.
> 
> Lieutenant Colonel Steve Butler 2002

----------


## justine

well i have tried to read as many of these posts as i can, and i am probably going to repeat some off what has been said, but here goes anyway........

I have studied the photos and all i can say is that they are fake....From looking at the two pics, an looking into the backround, and the smoke direction and the building that is supposed to be the tower, it is the wrong building standing........The towers have fallen,i recall watching as it happened in the news.....i was glued to it all day......The first photo you can see the building with the arrow in line with the window frame.....When the next pic is shown and the news reader has moved the picture has moved to the left and it is apparent that the building standing is not one of the towers....but that is just my opinion......

I would have read all the posts but i was not quite sure where the original post stopped and the iraq conspiracy came in.........so excuse me if i have repeated any thing....

----------


## MadPict

> Was there a conspiracy surrounding 9/11?? I don't think so....but I do think that some politicians jumped at the chance to use the events of 9/11 to serve their own agenda, while others were awake well into 10/11 burning papers that connected them to anyone vaguely involved with the attacks.
> [/URL]


If you asked me the question "Do you believe that there was a sinister US government sponsored operation to destroy the WTC/Pentagon/other target on Sept 11th 2001, resulting in the deaths of almost 3000 innocent people?" I would answer without any doubt "No". 
I would also answer no to any variation of that question the "truthseekers" might twist and turn to try to qualify their beliefs. End of...

If you then asked me "Do you believe that certain individuals took advantage of the 9/11 events to pursue their own agenda against Iraq?" then I would have to say "I have my doubts that they did not".

Four years on, I see Iraq in the state it is in because the tyrant that was Saddam was deposed. The same thing happened with the collapse of Soviet control over the former USSR. The 'rulers' in Moscow kept 'warring' factions suppressed under their vice like grip. Once that was gone their personal hatreds took control and we witnessed ethnic cleansing in the former Balkans. The situation in Chechnya and elsewhere also resulted from the cessation of control from Moscow.

In Iraq we have generations of religious hatred dividing the country, being aided by outside influences (such as Syria and Iran), and a death toll of ±3000 Iraqis a month. 

We also see out troops coming home in flagged draped coffins.

I see a repeat of the Soviet operations in Afghanistan where 1000's of Russian soldiers were sent home in body bags. The guerrilla war being fought by the Taliban against NATO troops will have the same result.

The mistake that was made, IMO, was that Bush diverted the military effort needed to defeat the Taliban away to invade Iraq. That *was* a mistake.

If the west had done the job (Iraq) properly the first time around, when it had the support of Arab nations, then we might not be discussing how "oddly" one or two or three buildings in New York fell. We might still be able to enjoy the splendid view over NY from the WTC. Almost 3000 people in the west would still be going home to their families every night. 
Maybe all those Iraqis that have died would be living in a peaceful land.

----------


## MadPict

You'll excuse me _roy_ if I don't rise to your bait, but the sun is shining outside and I do have a life to get on with, unlike some people here who spend hours a day drooling over their keyboards at the thought of reinforcing their pathetically tenuous threads to some conspiracy, over the acts of terrorism by inflicted on innocent people.

(Funny how _fred_ and _roy_ both choose not to use a capital letter in their usernames? We know that the CAPS key on their keyboards work. Conspiracise that....... )

Google away dood, enjoy the results.......

Now where is that yawning smiley?........

----------


## darkman

Kingstar are a company that deals in controlled demolitions. ::

----------


## MadPict

Gosh, darkman actually googled it....

Another convert to the Darkside....

----------


## darkman

> Gosh, darkman actually googled it....
> 
> Another convert to the Darkside....


Yes I googled it to find out what the company was, is that a crime like?

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Still wondering why Madpict, Rheghead and Jaws need to spend such large portions of their day defending their view when anyone with a differing one must be a such complete gullible idiot. If I posted a thread trying to convince you a spoon was fork, would you even post? If we are such a lost cause.. why bother?


Some people just enjoy the cut and thrust of debate I suppose. Ignoring responses, no matter how intelligent, lucid or otherwise they may be, makes it look as though one is giving up on the argument and therefore losing it by default.



> My problem with it is all the holes. The photos of the north side tell us plenty without even reading the text kids. I don't need evidence that will stand up in court to tell me a tiny fire could never take out a 47 storey steel frame building.


I'm glad you say that you have a problem with the holes roy - but you fail to mention the 20-storey hole in WTC7....



> Probably a coincidence the G8 was happening in Scotland on the day as well.


My brother is a Chief Inspector in Grampian Police and categorically assures me that a nationwide heightened security alert was in place in the *months* preceding the G8 summit at Gleneagles. After all, with all the attendant publicity surrounding the G8 meeting, what better time to strike and maximise publicity for a cause? For the same reason, anniversaries of 9/11 see heightened security alerts both in the US and in the UK, as does 7/7 in the UK. Does that really require explanation?

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Yes I googled it to find out what the company was, is that a crime like?


not for me to say darkman, but I think the comment was for roy's benefit, not aimed as a criticism at you...

Personally speaking, if I worked for Kingstar and was involved in controlled demolitions, I might want to _hide_ the fact that I had just blown up a bus (if that _is_ the inference). I might even have gone covert and disguised myself as something much more innocuous, like - say a hackney cab. Wait a minute - is that a hackney cab _in front_ of the Kingstar van????  ::

----------


## JAWS

> Still wondering why Madpict, Rheghead and Jaws need to spend such large portions of their day defending their view when anyone with a differing one must be a such complete gullible idiot. If I posted a thread trying to convince you a spoon was fork, would you even post? If we are such a lost cause.. why bother?


Because the constant Threads about the "Truth" containing the "Facts" get wilder and wilder as time goes on. Just read the rest of your post if you don't believe me. 

As for the photographs you have indicated, I suppose you will believe that if this guy moves the building will fall down! 
http://www.carolinelittle.com/images/pisa_007.jpg

Keep 'em coming, I love a good comedy show.

----------


## darkman

> not for me to say darkman, but I think the comment was for roy's benefit, not aimed as a criticism at you...
> 
> Personally speaking, if I worked for Kingstar and was involved in controlled demolitions, I might want to _hide_ the fact that I had just blown up a bus (if that _is_ the inference). I might even have gone covert and disguised myself as something much more innocuous, like - say a hackney cab. Wait a minute - is that a hackney cab _in front_ of the Kingstar van????


If that is the case B.S then I would much prefer if he refrained from using my posts in his arguments with roy.
I could not really give a toss about their childish arguments but he/she can leave me out of it.

----------


## MadPict

> Yes I googled it to find out what the company was, is that a crime like?


No not a crime - just warning you that you might have been zapped by the mind control beams hidden away in _roy's_ link  :Wink: 

Good point about the taxi cabs though - I mean how many black taxi drivers* were members of a terrorist organisation or at least complicit with one?......


*that's black taxis not black taxi drivers....

----------


## JAWS

> Because,  I believe those who blindly follow the government or BBCs line on these events are somewhat complicit in what happens next whether it be future terrorist attacks or more wars murdering more innocent people.


I will ask for that to be added to the charges. However I don't think I will worry about it though. 

If it doesn't bother me that I was once advised that my actions, or rather lack of them, would make me personally responsible for the start of World War Three then I don't think adding a few minor squabbles to my list of sins will cause me much concern. 

Personally I much prefer the original TV version of 9/11 than the much over-publicised Hollywood Blockbuster which was later vaguely based on it. The former was far more believable. Keep trying though, one day you might get one past the cutting room floor.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> I suppose you'll show me a 20 storey hole in a cardboard box then?


I'm only a simple man, so I can't understand this nonsense about the 20 storey hole in a cardboard box  ::  

Happily, I *do* understand the eyewitness testimony of a NYFD Captain who was at WTC7 and speaks to the 20 storey hole in the building.




> If the security was so "heightened" at that time why did they pull police out of their posts all over England to beat up a bunch of peacenik clowns leaving them even more vulnerable down south?


*All* Police leave in the UK was cancelled during the weeks preceding and following the G8 summit at Gleneagles, to help provide the thousands of extra cops required to Police the event. Simple really!!

----------


## scorrie

> You say the photo must be fake because it was on the internet?


Is that a statement or a question?

It seems to start off as a statement but takes a mysterious turn at the end.

I find it hard to believe that you can objectively follow the information on WTC7 because you seem to have great difficulty in understanding a very simple point that I am making.

You are presenting your photo of the molten metal as firm evidence. I am stating that it is no use whatever as evidence given the criteria for what is admissible in a court of law. We can all make our minds up as to whether or not the photo is fake, it does not mean that the photo MUST be fake but the fact remains that, as firm evidence of the truth, it is as much use as a pair of Knickers on a Kipper.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm not telling a lie I'm asking for the truth, so far there has only been a cover up.


Why ask for the Truth when you will only accept what you consider to be _your_ Truth??

The fact remains that 9/11 was the most hectic day in modern news reporting, things get muddled up.  When the Chief fireman said that WTC7 was getting pulled because it was beyond saving, then that will get reported as it has already collapsed, hence the video, if it is genuine.  So what? That is life.  HMS Sheffield was reported as sunk by the Argies and it was floating as a burnt out shell for at least two days until it was scuttled by UK forces.  So what?  Things get muddled in the heat of trying to report things.

----------


## Margaret M.

> If the west had done the job (Iraq) properly the first time around, when it had the support of Arab nations, then we might not be discussing how "oddly" one or two or three buildings in New York fell. We might still be able to enjoy the splendid view over NY from the WTC. Almost 3000 people in the west would still be going home to their families every night.


Since Iraq was not responsible for the events of 9/11, I fail to see how a different outcome to the Gulf War would have affected al Qaeda's plans.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead; what do you mean they maybe decided to pull it? You mean demolish it? You mean blow it up?


Neither because he says later in his account of 911 that he knew that it was doomed so he decided to concentrate on more worthy areas, perhaps that might explain why other WTCs stood and why WTC1,2, and 7 fell?




> That takes months of planning and weeks of rigging. You know that.


I agree, _That_ would take months of planning and weeks of rigging, lots of witnesses, so you know _That_ would be conspiracy theory, right?

----------


## MadPict

> Since Iraq was not responsible for the events of 9/11, I fail to see how a different outcome to the Gulf War would have affected al Qaeda's plans.


My point was about the drive to invade Iraq this time - if it had been finished off back in 91 then the 'excuse' of regime change/WMD this time would not be needed....

And maybe, just maybe, 9/11 would not have happened. 

But perhaps a different terrorist attack might have resulted...

----------


## fred

> Yes I googled it to find out what the company was, is that a crime like?


The clique use personal attacks and ridicule to make people affraid to consider any view but theirs. Anyone who looks at the evidence objectively just gets labelled a conspiracy freak.

----------


## fred

> My point was about the drive to invade Iraq this time - if it had been finished off back in 91 then the 'excuse' of regime change/WMD this time would not be needed....
> 
> And maybe, just maybe, 9/11 would not have happened. 
> 
> But perhaps a different terrorist attack might have resulted...


So you think that 9/11 happened because the American government needed an excuse to invade Iraq?

----------


## fred

> Is that a statement or a question?
> 
> It seems to start off as a statement but takes a mysterious turn at the end.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that you can objectively follow the information on WTC7 because you seem to have great difficulty in understanding a very simple point that I am making.
> 
> You are presenting your photo of the molten metal as firm evidence. I am stating that it is no use whatever as evidence given the criteria for what is admissible in a court of law. We can all make our minds up as to whether or not the photo is fake, it does not mean that the photo MUST be fake but the fact remains that, as firm evidence of the truth, it is as much use as a pair of Knickers on a Kipper.


But this is not a court of law.

One photo may not be proof but taken with the video of molten steel pouring out of WTC2, the video of firefighters saying streams of molten steel were flowing in the cellars, the photos of solidified molten steel pulled from the rubble and a host of eye witness testimony I have to consider the photo genuine unless I see some credible evidence otherwise.

----------


## Rheghead

> What more worthy areas? Filling in his insurance claim? What? Explain pls?


If building A is beyond saving and building B isn't, you are gonna save building B right?  So you pull firefighters from building A right? ::

----------


## Rheghead

> But this is not a court of law.
> 
> One photo may not be proof but taken with the video of molten steel pouring out of WTC2, the video of firefighters saying streams of molten steel were flowing in the cellars, the photos of solidified molten steel pulled from the rubble and a host of eye witness testimony I have to consider the photo genuine unless I see some credible evidence otherwise.


That is all cherry-picked snippets of info from the midst of confusion, made by language that can be taken in many different contexts, and we are supposed to believe a highly unlikely scenario ?

As for the photograph, I ripped into it re contrast, lighting, experience of molten steel.  The photograph was impossible to make without tampering on PaintShop Pro.  I gave references to other people who had reservations to its authenticity.  It was fake, any numpty could see that.

You are making it very complicated to prove your conspiracy theory and making mistakes with every turn.  Fake, simple.

----------


## Rheghead

> No, I'm confused. What's Building B???


You are being very flippant now.  You know full well what I am getting at.

----------


## Rheghead

> ehm. No quite honestly. What do you mean by Building B? Which building were they going to (did; tried to) save instead??


OK, I will make my point in elementary language especially for you.

The fire chief diverted firemen from a lost cause(WTC7) to other areas(there are probably too many to mention, WTC4,5,6, perhaps? I really can't be bothered to look into it) where he thought his men could make a real difference in terms of saving life as WTC7 was evacuated.

----------


## JAWS

> Well, maybe my fork isn't a spoon afterall?


It must be terrible for you to be so confused about that as well. Don't worry about it though, both of them fit into a very small space.

----------


## JAWS

> OK, I will make my point in elementary language especially for you.
> 
> The fire chief diverted firemen from a lost cause(WTC7) to other areas(there are probably too many to mention, WTC4,5,6, perhaps? I really can't be bothered to look into it) where he thought his men could make a real difference in terms of saving life as WTC7 was evacuated.


Rheghead, take pity. He's so confused that he can't even tell the difference between a fork and a spoon.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, let's look at WTC 6 again. ^
> 
> Why no collapse with all that damage?
> 
> No building bloody B!


Perhaps it was still standing through the decision to pull firemen from WTC7 to WTC6?  If so, it worked yeah?

----------


## Rheghead

> WTC 5? Got hit by WTC 1 too. What was there to save 8 hours later Rheghead?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe WTC 6? Naw. You think there was a whole bloody lot to save here 8 hours later?


Difficult decisions have to be made, I guess you can't understand that, they tried, perhaps they failed, another collapsed prevented though.

----------


## Rheghead

> Whatever suits you Rheghead.


I think it is more logical than supposing that WTC7 was planned and rigged to blow in perfect conjunction with a terrorist attack and with no witnesses/forensic evidence being found at the scene.  It is rather a complicated explanation.  The simplest explanations are nearly always correct.

----------


## MadPict

> So you think that 9/11 happened because the American government needed an excuse to invade Iraq?





> So, you're saying 9/11 is a result of Islamic oppression since 1991?


Whatever you say RoyFred  ::   ::

----------


## fred

> As for the photograph, I ripped into it re contrast, lighting, experience of molten steel.  The photograph was impossible to make without tampering on PaintShop Pro.  I gave references to other people who had reservations to its authenticity.  It was fake, any numpty could see that.


And I checked on what you said about contrast and lighting, I found a video made under almost identical conditions, at night, at ground zero, of workers cutting girders with oxyacetylene burners. I found what you said was not true, the cutting torch and the white hot molten steel did not drown out the rest of the picture, the detail and contrast even close to the cutting torch were fine.

----------


## JAWS

Rheghead, you must realise that you are dealing with experts here who have vast first hand knowledge of dealing with numerous major disasters. 

You really should accept that, whilst everybody is getting hysterical and running round in panic, our hero and his few aids have got the whole situation worked out in detail and if only all the hundreds of idiots would accept what the hero tells them then everything would work out perfectly. 

Didn't you ever watch "Towering Inferno", Rheghead? All the Emergency Services use it as a Training Guide.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> And I checked on what you said about contrast and lighting, I found a video made under almost identical conditions, at night, at ground zero, of workers cutting girders with oxyacetylene burners. I found what you said was not true, the cutting torch and the white hot molten steel did not drown out the rest of the picture, the detail and contrast even close to the cutting torch were fine.


Well you would get more help if you compared like with like.  The pools of molten metal which you are suggesting are truely massive, as shown on the fake photo.  The molten part when cutting with oxy-acetylene is about the size of a thimble. ::

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

Seeing there has been a reference made to WTC7 collapsing at near freefall speed, can I re-post my earlier question?

_"Incidentally, knowing nothing about demolition, would a controlled demolition lead to a partial collapse of WTC7 (from the top of the building) some 6 seconds preceding the entire building coming down? Because that's what happened! I ask the question in all sincerity and wouldn't mind an input from somebody suitably qualified to answer. As I keep banging on about questions surrounding the building's structural integrity, it seems to me (a devout layman!) that the partial collapse scenario might be more consistent with a weakening of the structure rather than the controlled demolition theory."_

Any theories on that anyone?

----------


## JAWS

It's all about control of the Middle East and it's Oil? It certainly is, but not in the way some would have you believe! 




> In the coming period the attention of the masses will be concentrated on the struggle against imperialism. It is the duty of all genuine socialists to support this struggle of the Iraqi people. The tragedy is that there is no genuine workers' alternative that can direct this movement and give it a genuine proletarian content. 
> 
> This vacuum leaves room for reactionary Islamic fundamentalism to develop. However, just across the border in Iran another form of Islamic fundamentalism has been in power fro more than two decades. They have solved none of the pressing problems of the Iranian masses. In the recent period there have been movements of the youth, in particular of the students, and these have inevitably come up against the mullahs in power. The workers of Iran have also suffered terribly under the regime of these mullahs. The Iraqi workers and youth must not forget this and they must draw all the necessary conclusions. 
> 
> So long as capitalism and imperialism dominate the Middle East there will be no solution to the problems faced by the peoples of this region. The solutions to their problems are to be found on the road of the class struggle, socialism and internationalism. The region is rich in resources. There is no reason why these people should live in poverty and destitution. The problem is that the resources are controlled by the imperialists and their local corrupt stooges. The task is to overthrow all these reactionary regimes, take the resources and place them under the control of the workers of all these countries. 
> 
> *That can only be achieved through the building of a Socialist Federation of the whole of the Middle East*.


Now I wonder who would really have an interest in keeping the unrest in Iraq going as long as possible and trying to spread it to surrounding areas? 

Chavez has control of the Oil in Venezuela, Putin that of Russia and Africa is is kept in a state of constant unrest with certain countries blocking any attempts at prevention. 
With a Socialist Federation (a USSR) of the Middle East controlling the Oil there then it's,  
"Forward Brothers to the Revolution! We can bring down the whole Capitalist System and replace it with State Controlled Marxist Economies! All we have to do is keep everybodys attention focused on America until its too late." 
Who cares if it costs the lives of tens of thousands of women and children (or is it hundreds of thousands?) whilst starting the Revolution, thats just an unfortunate side effect.

----------


## fred

> Seeing there has been a reference made to WTC7 collapsing at near freefall speed, can I re-post my earlier question?
> 
> _"Incidentally, knowing nothing about demolition, would a controlled demolition lead to a partial collapse of WTC7 (from the top of the building) some 6 seconds preceding the entire building coming down? Because that's what happened! I ask the question in all sincerity and wouldn't mind an input from somebody suitably qualified to answer. As I keep banging on about questions surrounding the building's structural integrity, it seems to me (a devout layman!) that the partial collapse scenario might be more consistent with a weakening of the structure rather than the controlled demolition theory."_
> 
> Any theories on that anyone?


In a normal controlled demolition workmen go in and severely weaken the sructure by cutting part way through the steel girders with cutting torches, they then use explosives to blow out the support columns at the base of the building and gravity does the rest.

The theory is that with WTC7 thermite charges were used to cut through the girders to weaken the structure before explosives blew out the support columns at the base of the building.

There is no dispute that the building was weakened, it fell down, the only question is what weakened it.

----------


## fred

> Well you would get more help if you compared like with like.  The pools of molten metal which you are suggesting are truely massive, as shown on the fake photo.  The molten part when cutting with oxy-acetylene is about the size of a thimble.


I didn't see any massive pools of molten metal in the photo at all, they would be under the ground.

----------


## Rheghead

> I didn't see any massive pools of molten metal.


So there were no large pools of molten metal several weeks later? Glad that one is sorted then.

----------


## MadPict

Most demo jobs require weeks/months of preparation - the building which is so often used as an example of dropping a structure into its own footprint took 4 months to prep. So all the work required to prep WTC7 went unnoticed by the 100's of workers going in and out of the building everyday? 

Or perhaps they did it at night time disguised as cleaners? And the 1000's of pounds of explosives was smuggled in in their lunch boxes?...

----------


## scotsboy

> Most demo jobs require weeks/months of preparation - the building which is so often used as an example of dropping a structure into its own footprint took 4 months to prep. So all the work required to prep WTC7 went unnoticed by the 100's of workers going in and out of the building everyday? 
> 
> Or perhaps they did it at night time disguised as cleaners? And the 1000's of pounds of explosives was smuggled in in their lunch boxes?...


No the prep work was carried out by Ninja Turtles who used the NY Sewer system to access the buildings - hence nobody ever saw them.

----------


## fred

> Most demo jobs require weeks/months of preparation - the building which is so often used as an example of dropping a structure into its own footprint took 4 months to prep. So all the work required to prep WTC7 went unnoticed by the 100's of workers going in and out of the building everyday? 
> 
> Or perhaps they did it at night time disguised as cleaners? And the 1000's of pounds of explosives was smuggled in in their lunch boxes?...


There were men in overalls carrying things into the WTC buildings in the weeks before 9/11, the people who worked there were told they were replacing network cables. If the men had badges supplied by the Kuwaiti owned security firm, with strong ties to the Bush family, in charge of security for the WTC then why would anyone question them?

----------


## MadPict

So this is your defence? Men in overalls? Which buildings? From which companies? What were they doing? What were they carrying? What was in their lunch boxes? Were they Arab looking? Did they stand in dark corners muttering about fuses or thermite?

Come on red, spool out the expanation that they were involved in a huge plot to destroy the WTC buildings on 9/11! Just saying "_There were men in overalls carrying things into the WTC buildings in the weeks before 9/11...blah blah blah_" is not good enough. Did you see them? Were they observed by the same person over these weeks? Name that person. 

Give us concrete and steel evidence, but only if we can wrap a layer of thermite around it...

Muahahahahahaaaa

----------


## scorrie

> But this is not a court of law.


Err, and a Banana is not a Frog.

This is about evaluating the strength of your evidence and it seems pretty logical to compare it to what would be good enough to satisfy the Legal World.

Again your response is desperate.

Here is one thing I would guarantee and that is that you would be laughed out of any court in the land in the same way that you are creating hilarity on this forum with your Fantasy Island mutterings.

Case closed.

----------


## fred

> So this is your defence? Men in overalls? Which buildings? From which companies? What were they doing? What were they carrying? What was in their lunch boxes? Were they Arab looking? Did they stand in dark corners muttering about fuses or thermite?
> 
> Come on red, spool out the expanation that they were involved in a huge plot to destroy the WTC buildings on 9/11! Just saying "_There were men in overalls carrying things into the WTC buildings in the weeks before 9/11...blah blah blah_" is not good enough. Did you see them? Were they observed by the same person over these weeks? Name that person.


His name was Scott Forbes.

----------


## Rheghead

> Referring to the photo of the cut steel. Perhaps Rheghead could explain what the slag from an oxyacetylene cut might look like? Maybe he might also know why so much sulphur was found in the rubble? Any ideas?
> 
> Is the case closed on why the tritium levels were 7x higher than the standard natural acceptable level?


Yes, molten steel from oxyacetylene looks exactly like in the fireman/stanchion photo, not what you wanted to pass off as 'pools of molten steel'

As far as the sulphur, are you refering to sulphur in its native form or compounds sulphates or sulphites?

If you are refering to compounds of sulphur then any amount of materials from concrete to plastics and rubbers can explain things, especially burnt rubbers use sulphurous fillers in their composition.

If you are refering to native sulphur, then it was used in the building industry to anchor bolts into stone or concrete until it was phased out on health reasons.

As for the tritium levels, there can be any number reasons for its existence.  Actually, 7 times the natural background levels isn't a lot, (given that there is a difference between natural and anthropogenic backgrounds).  This can easily be explained by having a nuclear reactor nearby, tritium discharges are a perfectly normal part of reactor operation.  You may be surprised to know that the Pentland Firth can have Tritium levels many times higher than natural levels, I'm still healthy you will be pleased to know...

Slightly more informed than you bargained for eh?  And I haven't searched Wiki either...




> No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation but, they are mostly ailing with blood cancers otherwise known as leukaemia caused by low levels of white blood cells which is exactly what exposure to radiation (including tritium which is a radioactive isotope) does to the human body. As proven horrifically in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie? 
> 
> Thermates' nowt in the scheme of things. Ever hear of Deuterium-Tritium fusion? Thermonuclear explosive devices? Or was it from the tritium contained in the airplanes parts or police equipment lost? We already knew that two planes crashed into the towers. So, if tritium from the plane would be an issue, why didn't they send them in with the proper equipment? Why are hundreds of the responders dying from radiation causal like symptoms? Why is noone paying any attention to them? Why does Silverstein get nearly 8 billion dollars in insurance cover and the responders and true heroes of 9/11 none?!?


Do you think that tritium has the radioactive properties to create such clusters of cancers given that what you say is true? Tritium is actually only just classed as a ionising isotope.  At 7 times above natural background levels then you have to look for other reasons.  Perhaps it was all the silicosis effects from all the rubble?

roy, your 'explanations' get weirder and wierder!  Next!

----------


## Rheghead

> Just how did these two gigantic buildings disappear into a 7 storey hole leaving only 30 foot piles of rubble above ground? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the best way one might do this?


Good packing.  The towers were designed for maximum internal space with most of the load on the outer edge and central areas.  The thing just collapsed, plus a lot of the dust spread over a wide area.




> First off, manmade nuclear reactors are not "normal" in any sense of the matter. 7x is alot if it is 7x the normal recorded levels. So is 7x more alot if the normal levels are extremely high say like "a thousand times" higher than the average normal. So, all the recorded abnormal levels of blood cancers of persons involved with the 9/11 event is just an anomaly then? Tritium exposure wouldn't cause this you say?


Define normal please, but yes, I would say it is not normal to have an indepth knowledge of radioactive substances, so you are excused for thinking that a 7 fold increase on natural H3 levels could cause lots of cancers.   As far as I know, white blood cells attack foreign bodies that enter the blood.  There were lots of people that breathed in dust or it entered eyes and such, I am not medically educated but I think it is quite feasible that the drop in white blood cells could be explained by the invasion of silica into the blood.  That is a guess or I am purely hypothesising.
Next!

----------


## MadPict

RoyFred,

Scott Forbes - yet another regular in the CT bandwagon. Have to do better than one person who hasn't been linked to the CT brigade. 

NOT independent enough as a witness.




> Scott Forbes also worked in the south tower, which still leaves the other two buildings unexplained, without a single witness to explain how hundreds of technicians could have placed thousands of explosive charges, without any of the security, workers, or bomb sniffing dogs noticing.
> 
> Furthermore, in an interview, with Killtown, a pro-conspiracy blog no less, Scott Forbes directly contradicts Ben Fountain's account (emphasis mine).
> 
>     KT: Besides the "power down" the weekend before 9/11, was there any other unusual activity going on related to the WTC? There was one guy, Ben Fountain, who worked on the 47 floor of the WTC 2 who said there was an unusual amount of evacuation drills. Did you experience any of those?
> 
>     SF: We had regular fire/evacuation drills, *but not an unusual number.*
> 
> http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/ben-fountain-meet-scott-forbes.html


Next!

Do you enjoy scouring the interwebnetland for more Truthseeker diarrhoea?...

----------


## MadPict

> Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the best way one might do this?


Why should we? You seem to have the whole day sewn up - just read what the rest of the crazies write about 9/11 - the truth is out there, but don't ask the Truthseekers to provide it. They just provide their warped version of the facts which is actually a disgraceful slur on the memories of all those who died on that day....

----------


## Rheghead

> They just provide their warped version of the facts which is actually a disgraceful slur on the memories of all those who died on that day....


Well said, I agree entirely, how low can they go? ::

----------


## fred

> RoyFred,
> 
> Scott Forbes - yet another regular in the CT bandwagon. Have to do better than one person who hasn't been linked to the CT brigade. 
> 
> NOT independent enough as a witness.


He was there, you were not.




> Next!
> Scott Forbes also worked in the south tower, which still leaves the other two buildings unexplained, without a single witness to explain how hundreds of technicians could have placed thousands of explosive charges, without any of the security, workers, or bomb sniffing dogs noticing.


What bomb sniffing dogs, they were all removed five days before 9/11.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...,1255660.story

----------


## Rheghead

> What bomb sniffing dogs, they were all removed five days before 9/11.


Incorrect.  That is more misinformation.  Not convinced?  Take a look at the link below.

http://www.our.homewithgod.com/mkcathy/sirius.html

Next!

----------


## MadPict

> He was there, you were not.


No he wasn't - he was at home. 




> KT: Were you at home on 9/11? Can you tell us what you were doing up to the time you heard about the 1st plane crash?
> 
> SF: I was at home having coffee when I heard the 1st plane hit the North tower. I thought it was a car crash on the street below (I lived on the 15th floor) and so I went to the window and opened the blind to look down (the blinds were closed due to the bright sunshine) and there in front of me I saw the smoke coming from the North Tower.
> 
> http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html


Next....

----------


## JAWS

Now, now MadPict and Rheghead, just put them out of their misery. You both know full well that the towers were both weakened on the weekend before the collapses. 
They are obviously totally unaware that it was George Bush disguised as Maxwell with his Magic Hammer who did itso why don't you tell them! 

Well, they are so desperate to accept any kind of invention in the hope that people will believe it was Bush. 
Personally, I favour it being the Big, Bad Wolf huffing and puffing which blew them all down. 

The pair of you really must learn how to treat their "explanations" with the seriousness they deserve! Next they will be telling us it was a Klingon Bird of Prey which was able to fire whilst cloaked!  ::

----------


## darkman

Jaws shows some of his more intelligent debating skills. ::

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> What bomb sniffing dogs, they were all removed five days before 9/11.


Supposing all the bomb-sniffing dogs were removed five days before 9/11, did I not read elsewhere on this thread that it takes _weeks_ to adequately prepare a building of any substantial size for controlled demolition (in all candour, I now lack the enthusiasm to research who said it where!)? Surely _five days_ requires a herculean effort, which would have difficulty going unnoticed and require a small army of 'men in overalls' - although it makes a change from those MIB's, I suppose.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> So, I wonder if FEMA reports, statement from a Asst. Chief Frank Fellini from the NYFD, NIST report http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7...es_112901.html & even in the article "Debunking 9/11" from Popular Mechanics http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5 that clearly all state there were no firefighters in WTC 7 after 11:30am to "pull" from the building would stand up in court?


I think the point has already been made that the NYFD were not inside the building but _were_ in the immediate vicinity, i.e. directly outside, and that NYFD Captain Chris Boyle was about to deploy his men _inside_ WTC7 and was instructed at the last minute not to, over concerns regarding the structural integrity of the building.




> Maybe he might also know why so much sulphur was found in the rubble? Any ideas?


Please see the latter part of this site, which, to me, a layman, seems to spell it out several times over.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> In a normal controlled demolition workmen go in and severely weaken the sructure by cutting part way through the steel girders with cutting torches, they then use explosives to blow out the support columns at the base of the building and gravity does the rest.
> 
> The theory is that with WTC7 thermite charges were used to cut through the girders to weaken the structure before explosives blew out the support columns at the base of the building.
> 
> There is no dispute that the building was weakened, it fell down, the only question is what weakened it.


I thought I was looking for a response from someone "suitably qualified" - not a _theory_ - too many of those abound.....  :Wink:

----------


## JAWS

> Jaws shows some of his more intelligent debating skills.


I try to treat every Thread with the due consideration it deserves. A Thread which is full of Fantasy, Wishful Thinking and amounts to nothing more than mischief making is treated in the appropriate manner. 

I don't consider that a modern version of "I'll huff and I'll puff and 'til I blow the (White) House down." is worthy of such effort. 

Six years of thrashing around in the dark playing a game of "A theory a day just for something to say" and failing to find even a single alternative which sounds even vaguely plausible tells it's own story. 

You can go to any Playgroup and find children making up games which are more realistic. 

As time as gone on the constant make believe scenarios had become wilder and wilder. The belief that the more wild stories you start the more doubt you create simply isn't working. All it does is make supposed foundations for their assertions look more and more fragile.  

To pretend that that there has been a "Conspiracy of Silence" involving all the World's Media and all of the World's Politicians is about as pathetic as anybody can get. 

All you have to do is think of how many of the Leaders of various Countries would gain great kudos by bringing Bush down and you realise how far out of touch with reality the Conspiracy Theories are. 

You don't have to have an in-depth knowledge of World politics to think of at least half a dozen Countries whose Leaders would leap at the first opportunity to bring Bush down, yet not one has supported any of the wild accusations.

----------


## darkman

I see where you're coming from jaws but if nobody replied then the thread would quickly die out.
On another point it is worth considering 'operation northwood', the u.s plan for justification of Military Intervention in Cuba by commiting terrorist acts against their own citizens, i.e, hijacking of planes, killings, falsifying evidence, etc and blaming it all on the cuban government.



> Casualty lists in the newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation


No conspiracy there, just plain evil.

----------


## JAWS

To conspire to commit something on the scale of 9/11 without it very obviously falling apart is as likely as life on earth being destroyed in the next seven days by a comet. 

The larger the incident and the greater the number of Conspiracy Theories is inversely proportional to the likelihood of any of them being even vaguely probable. 

Your reference to Operation Northwood is interesting. Is there any indication that it was ever anything other than a discussion document? 
Is there any serious suggestion that it ever got beyond the stage of being a "Paper Exercise"? 

I'm quite sure that most Governments have such documents floating around at various times which never get beyond the "what if" stage. 

Even if they had gone ahead with it it could never even approached the size and complexity of 9/11 which, if any of the alternative explanations are to be believed, would have involved at a very minimum thousands of people being involved. 
That very fact alone says that any of them would be a non-starter.  

I don't mind the thread carrying on, the longer it continues the more ridiculous the suggested "facts" become.

----------


## MadPict

> I now lack the enthusiasm to research who said it where


I think that was me - and I have since found out that it was done by a swarm of Black Helicopters...



> Black Helicopters (BH) are not just helicopters with a black paint-job as you may have been told. They are, in fact, autonomous agents -- lifeforms -- created by New World Order (NWO) agencies via nanobiotechnology.


This is the only way the buildings could have been rigged without anyone noticing - 1000's of BH beavered away in complete secrecy over many months on "Operation Deny". I know this because I am a Black Helicopter Nanobiotechnician - I didn't want to tell you but I feel the truth has to come out now. Enough hiding behind all the lies of the conspirators in Government.

And to prove I am what I say I am I have a badge....

----------


## fred

> Supposing all the bomb-sniffing dogs were removed five days before 9/11, did I not read elsewhere on this thread that it takes _weeks_ to adequately prepare a building of any substantial size for controlled demolition (in all candour, I now lack the enthusiasm to research who said it where!)? Surely _five days_ requires a herculean effort, which would have difficulty going unnoticed and require a small army of 'men in overalls' - although it makes a change from those MIB's, I suppose.


Civillian demolition teams take weeks, military demolition teams do it faster.

----------


## fred

> On another point it is worth considering 'operation northwood', the u.s plan for justification of Military Intervention in Cuba by commiting terrorist acts against their own citizens, i.e, hijacking of planes, killings, falsifying evidence, etc and blaming it all on the cuban government.


Or the Lavon Affair.

----------


## fred

> Jaws shows some of his more intelligent debating skills.


When God was giving out brains he was still queuing for an extra helping of mouth.

----------


## JAWS

> Or the Lavon Affair.


Next Mata Hari will have been set up by the CIA. 
Of course, other Countries do things using gentler methods. Anybody know how to use an Ice Pick? 

Oh, and thanks for the complement fred. Keep em coming, I can stand them all day.  ::

----------


## darkman

> To conspire to commit something on the scale of 9/11 without it very obviously falling apart is as likely as life on earth being destroyed in the next seven days by a comet. 
> 
> The larger the incident and the greater the number of Conspiracy Theories is inversely proportional to the likelihood of any of them being even vaguely probable. 
> 
> Your reference to Operation Northwood is interesting. Is there any indication that it was ever anything other than a discussion document? 
> Is there any serious suggestion that it ever got beyond the stage of being a "Paper Exercise"? 
> 
> I'm quite sure that most Governments have such documents floating around at various times which never get beyond the "what if" stage. 
> 
> ...


As you will be aware, the plans for operation northwood didn't come to fruition but still, the intent was there and to have such evil minded people in the military begs the question, where would they draw the line?
What ifs are still too much for my morals to comprehend!

----------


## MadPict

> Civillian demolition teams take weeks, military demolition teams do it faster.


Wots dat den? A bumper sticker?

"Dancers do it with rhythm"

"Conspiracy Theorists didn't do it - someone else did"

"Golfers do it with dimpled balls"

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Civillian demolition teams take weeks, military demolition teams do it faster.


And here was me imagining that the civillian teams would demonstrate a high level of proficiency, given how often they'd be involved in actual demolitions compared with the military.....

How much do you know about military demolition teams to give you this insight into how fast they are fred? Are you really some sort of whistle-blower? Which multi-storey office blocks did they practice on to gain this expertise? This could be a whole new can of worms here.... perhaps there is no San Andreas fault.... it's the military/black ops practising with their thermite.  ::  

Alternatively - fast _and_ covert - are you sure it wasn't the TMNT after all??

----------


## fred

> How much do you know about military demolition teams to give you this insight into how fast they are fred? Are you really some sort of whistle-blower? Which multi-storey office blocks did they practice on to gain this expertise? This could be a whole new can of worms here.... perhaps there is no San Andreas fault.... it's the military/black ops practising with their thermite.


Well the mosque at Samarra didn't take them long at all.

----------


## MadPict

Oh no!!!!

Can it be that there was suspicious activity around the Mosque the night before it was "bombed" by Sunni terrorists? (Reported by that bastion of truth the American Free Press*... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  )

When will the conspiracy theorists rest?

fred, do you actually believe this complete twaddle?

How do you sleep at night? Or don't you, just in case the NWO creep into your house and implant thought control devices in your head? 
Mind you, they might find it a tight squeeze, what with the mind control device already inserted by the Church of the Conspiracy Theorists....

I wondered around about page 12 of this thread ( I would have said page 9 or page 11 but you might have attached some El Weirdo Bunkum to those choices) if it could get anymore bizarre -- but with every new post from the "Truthseekers", no sorry, the "Damned Liars" bibble it gets better....


*Watch out! There is a Black Helicopter about!!!!.....*

*


> The American Free Press is a publication launched by Willis Carto, who previously published Spotlight magazine through his now-defunct Liberty Lobby, an organization worked with racist anti-segregationists and neo-Nazi holocaust deniers. AFT was launched by Carto in August 2001 following the court-ordered closure of Spotlight. Many of the staff of Spotlight continued on with American Free Press.
> 
> Carto continues to publish deceptive materials in which history is treated as a huge Jewish conspiracy. During the war with Iraq, for example, his Barnes Review attempted to exploit anti-war sentiment by publishing fake whistleblower memos on media bias in the Iraq war, which cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy by "Jews who run the media and government." 
> 
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/

----------


## fred

> fred, do you actually believe this complete twaddle?


The mosque at Sammara was blown up, there is no doubt about that.




> In November 2005, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Lincoln Group was helping the Pentagon covertly place pro-United States stories in Iraqi news outlets. "Dozens" of pieces written by U.S. military "information operations" troops were placed during 2005, according to the LA Times. "The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military", the LA Times reported. The Lincoln Group "helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Group

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Well the mosque at Samarra didn't take them long at all.


You just _have_ to love fred's little throwaway gems.... Undoubtedly we'll soon see a posting with a link to a site where eyewitnesses will speak categorically to seeing strange men in boilersuits servicing the mosque's prayer mats and taking a lot longer than the usual janitorial staff, who mysteriously _all_ went on leave five days before the explosion.

And to think I thought it might have been disaffected Kurds or Sunnis. I must reproach myself for being so gullible so often  ::

----------


## MadPict

Was it blown up or was it blown down? 


I wonder if fred's love of the "TruthTwisters" version of events takes into consideration the obvious contempt that the likes of Dylan Avery (producer of the Loose Change video) show to the victims of 9/11? He is *on* record as saying "...if 5 people stand up in a plane with box cutters and say we're going to hijack this plane I'd laugh in their face..."

Yeah I'm sure you would...

During an introduction at a viewing of his video he stated, about the victims of 9/11, "The people are really secondary.."

Are they really? Then why dedicate your film to those victims? 

Avery and his chums along with Alex Jones are a disgrace. 

Alex Jones and his "Investigate 9-11" cronies finding some US military in a diner decide to harangue them - the military get up and walk out in silence with Jones scurrying along after them spouting his twisted beliefs as they walk down the street. Then on returning to the diner he is applauded by his group. This guy is able to do this openly without fear of being locked up because those very people he harassed are willing to fight for their country.

He is a coward and a bully.

Carry on believing the "TruthTwisters" fred - I think you're in the minority...

----------


## fred

> Carry on believing the "TruthTwisters" fred - I think you're in the minority...


I knew on 9/11 it had to be an inside job and it wasn't entirely unexpected. I'd already read the Neocon manifesto when Bush was declared President by the Conservative judiciary in 2000. I knew the records of Cheney and the people he appointed to his staff from the 80s, I knew then the world was in big trouble.

But I would be happy to be proven wrong if that proof came form a full indipendent public inquiry with all witnesses testifying under oath and all relevent doccuments made available, including the testimony of Sibil Edmonds.

----------


## Kaishowing

> ....During an introduction at a viewing of his video he stated, about the victims of 9/11, "The people are really secondary.."
> 
> Are they really? Then why dedicate your film to those victims? ...


I'm fairly sure that quote's been taken out of context.

Would you say the 2,403 victims of the Pearl Harbour attacks  were secondary on a global level?? 
Or would you say that the US entering into WW II on the back of the attack was more important on a global level?

The loss of life detracts nothing from the fact that on an historical level the US entering into the conflict is the more important fact.

I've never heard anyone say that the loss of life on 9/11 was nothing other than tragic who wasn't in sympathy with the terrorists. Are you suggesting that Dylan Avery is a closet supporter of Al-Quaeda? Because that's a rather extreme statement even for this thread.

You applaud people for flexing their right of freedom of speech, but at the same time point out that you think it's disgusting how that freedom is used.

Well part of that freedom is that he's allowed to do that, and you're allowed to critisize him....But you and others seem to get so bent out of shape when people here use that same freedom when it's not something you agree with.
You may be opposed to what they say and vice versa, but when posts become exercises in how to get as close as possible to saying 'you're an idiot and a liar' without actually saying it, then why bother posting?

I hardly think by belittling someone that you'll change their point of view.

----------


## MadPict

> I'm fairly sure that quote's been taken out of context.


You mean like the Conspiracy Theorists argument? Most if not all their 'evidence' is taken out of context. They quote a line from a page and say that is evidence it was a NWO conspiracy. They concentrate on one small fragment of an image and claim that is evidence the buildings were demolished.

I don't know what Avery is. I think he is a kid who just got mixed up with the wrong people. Alex Jones is not the sort of person I would want to have round for dinner. In fact I wouldn't micturate on him if he was on fire...
Dylan Avery made a big point that his video was in memory of the victims of 9/11 but it seems when interviewed by fellow CTs he soon forgets that those were real people that died and laughing and joking about them on a radio show does not make me think he is that sincere.

When they are not trying to show what serious filmmakers they are on shows that might pick holes in them, they revert back to being kids out for a laugh.

I feel that dishonours those who died. And their relatives are still around and can still be hurt by this whole "TruthTwister" movement.

You may not think it is such a big deal. Fair enough. I do.

Freedom of speech is about being allowed to air your views. Even if they are totally unbelievable. But while fred continues to post his material which questions the events of 9/11 I reserve the right (along with many others here) to point out the inconsistencies of his 'evidence'. If only to ensure that someone reading this thread gets a balanced viewpoint as opposed to just the view from fred's side of the fence.

Now I can't call anyone an idiot or a liar because some folk would jump down my throat and accuse me of abusing my position as a Mod blahblahblah...

And I hardly thing I'm going to change the views of fred etc. They are pretty entrenched in their beliefs. He says he knew on 9/11 it was an inside job. I'm glad he could cut through the sheer horror of watching those planes fly into the WTC to come to such a cut and dried conclusion.

And fred knew what reaction his creating this thread would get after the last WTC 7 - so if you can't stand the heat don't go into the kitchen - or should that be don't stand too close to the molten metal?....

----------


## JAWS

> I knew on 9/11 it had to be an inside job and it wasn't entirely unexpected. I'd already read the Neocon manifesto when Bush was declared President by the Conservative judiciary in 2000. I knew the records of Cheney and the people he appointed to his staff from the 80s, I knew then the world was in big trouble.


I think that says it all. Roughly translated what fred is saying is, "Before anybody had the slightest idea what had happened (because on 9/11 nobody did have the slightest idea of anything other than it involved planes and buildings) I had already made my mind up that Bush and those close to him were to blame!" 

I recognise the technique, it is one which has been used time and again down the centuries, "You will be found guilty and sentenced, all we have to do is find some sort of evidence and then we will hold the trial!" 

This is the same person who insists that it is others who are the ones with closed minds.

----------


## sweetheart

> The thing just collapsed, plus a lot of the dust spread over a wide area.


..but rheghead, you're a chemist.  How many gallons of JP4 does it take to
melt 47 columns box columns 36 x16 inches *5 inches thick. * I supposed in
your chemistry, buildings fall faster in the path of most resistance, high
tensile steel just 'melts' like butter and your house is powered by perpetual motion.  The number of apparently scientifically literate persons who believe
that steel just flys apart in mushroom clouds from 1/2 hour fires is really
shocking.  

The laws of physics just don't keep with 'the thing just collapsed'.  How much
heat does it take to make an unextinguishable fire that lasts for 100 days and
register an earthquake of 2.7 tonnes of TNT (wtc1).  Surely as a chemist,
you could caclulate the heat to turn 700 people in to sub-centimeter 
fragments of dust and lodge them in an air conditioning vent on another
building.  700 people do not turn to dust in a building collapse.

----------


## Kaishowing

> You may not think it is such a big deal. Fair enough. I do.
> 
> Freedom of speech is about being allowed to air your views. Even if they are totally unbelievable. But while fred continues to post his material which questions the events of 9/11 I reserve the right (along with many others here) to point out the inconsistencies of his 'evidence'. If only to ensure that someone reading this thread gets a balanced viewpoint as opposed to just the view from fred's side of the fence.



You're contradicting yourself while simultaneously puting words into my mouth that I never said. Who says men can't multi-task!

You get as outraged as a maiden aunt when someone suggests there's a clique of people unwilling to listen to non official theories (with the implication you're a member), but quite happily throw around 'Truth-Twisters' without batting an eye.
To look at it honestly, there IS a clique of people in this thread...two in  fact, but I don't recall those who believe the oposite to you calling you a liar (which is what you're doing with the 'truth-twister' crack even indirectly).

And just to clear something else up, I never said you called anyone an idiot or a liar (although by implication you come close as early as post #20), what I said was :


> but when posts become exercises in how to get as close as possible to saying 'you're an idiot and a liar' *without actually saying it*


But that the game now though isn't it? That's the only reason some people post here.

----------


## Rheghead

> ..but rheghead, you're a chemist.  How many gallons of JP4 does it take to
> melt 47 columns box columns 36 x16 inches *5 inches thick. * .


Well that is the whole point isn't it? I don't think that the steel structure _did_ melt so that is end of discussion as far as I am concerned.  What I do think is that the fuel and materials did burn with such a ferocity that  the heat lowered the G modulus of the steel to such a point that the structure buckled.  The momentum just took over with all the weight above, that is physics.

Is it such a coincidence that the high-rise WTCs collapsed while WTC 4,6 didn't? ::

----------


## MadPict

I use the term "TruthTwister" not to indicate fred but those self styled "TruthSeekers" who take the truth, pick little bits out of it and present it as the whole fact. They are not seekers of truth in my opinion (which after all is what this whole discussion is about, opinion) but the twisters of facts. 

And I couldn't give a flying toss about a clique here so the "maiden aunt" bit is erroneous - others have a bee in their bonnet about this mysterious clique.

If there is a clique here I suspect they look through a glass darkly.....




> But that the game now though isn't it? That's the only reason some people post here.


Hey, it's easy - just don't click on the thread if you don't want to read anymore....

----------


## fred

> You mean like the Conspiracy Theorists argument? Most if not all their 'evidence' is taken out of context. They quote a line from a page and say that is evidence it was a NWO conspiracy. They concentrate on one small fragment of an image and claim that is evidence the buildings were demolished.


Did you know that on the 10th of September 2001 Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2.1 trillion dollars was missing from the defence budget? That's more than a lot of money, put it in perspective, a million dollars is a lot of money, a million seconds is over 11 days, a trillion seconds is over 30,000 years, think about it.

What do you suppose happened to all that money? Where did it go? We will never know, by some strange coincidence the next day the area of the Pentagon which housed all the records, including the computers, was hit by a plane.

The entire story of 9/11 is one of one fantastic against all the odds coincidence after another. People like you take them one at a time and say "it's possible", people like me look at the entire picture and know it isn't.

Video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is among the evidence still being withheld, only one clip which shows nothing has been released but it should have been caught on several cameras.

All the truth movement, which includes family members of some of those killed on 9/11, want is a propper investigation with all the evidence made available. What have you got against that?

----------


## Kaishowing

> If there is a clique here I suspect they look through a glass darkly.....


OUCH! Luaghed so hard a broke a rib!
Back into your Black helicopter Biggles!

----------


## MadPict

> What have you got against that?


I'll be out of a job as a Nanobiotechnician working on Black Helicopters....

Chocks away....

----------


## sweetheart

> Is it such a coincidence that the high-rise WTCs collapsed while WTC 4,6 didn't?


Really rheghead, do you know it takes a long time (longer than the fire) to
weld 2 railway sections using professional welding rig.  Jet fuel cannot reduce
the modulus of steel... especially such a small amount without a blast furnace.

Those towers were 1 acre per floor, your thermodynamics simply does not
compute with the sheer amount of energy involved.  We're talking about a
5x5x4 meter room of petrol here.  I challenge you, that you could not produce
any forumula that would show how the tank of fuel managed to melt the
structure.  The NIST hasn't.  No physicist will put their reputation on the
line with such bollocks... are you?  Explain how a 5x5x4 meter volume of JP4
vaporized 1 acre * 110 floors of 5 inches of conccrete in to dust, 
and melted 60 foot sections of the core; AND dissolved 200,000
gallons of water that disappeared from the roof tank.

As well, your physics is really odd when WTC7 took 2 times as long to fall
as WTC 1... bigger falls faster, huh?  Wow, were newton alive, even he
would turn in his grave.


But the most odd, you must confess, is how 2 asymetrical events caused
2 perfectly symetrical collapses when had you done any testing, an asymettric 
even on a balanced tower causes an asymetric collapse.

You must please explain how a 5x5x4 volume of JP4 melted all 47 columns
to their modulus of total collapse in 1/2 an hour; even standard UK
university courseware says that's impossible:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...teelMember.htm

----------


## JAWS

Quite right fred, Donald Rumsfeld did make that announcement on 10 Sept 2001. 
What you are not mentioning is that the last time the Defence Departments Books were subject to audit prior to that was in 1995, in other words at the start of the Clinton Presidency. 
You also fail to mention that there had been complaints from high ranking Officers in the Military complaining about poor accounting methods as long ago as 1975. 

As usual, in order to support the idea of massive conspiracies by Bush and  Rumsfeld etc. a small, specially selected part of a story has been plucked out as if it were the whole story. 

A simple check reveals that the money had not suddenly disappeared but had been slowly lost over a period of decades. It would appear that, contrary to what you would like people to believe, Rumsfeld was not involved in some kind of Conspiracy but was putting into the Public Domain what others have been covering up for at least thirty years and probably far longer.

----------


## sweetheart

Notice how the hemel hempstead fire of significantly more fossil fuels melted
less steel and did not burn for 100 days.  No serious person of science can
actually defend the official story.  Its not even valid with A level physics, 
let alone the need for university qualification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_He..._Terminal_fire

----------


## JAWS

The Hemel Hempstead fire? I didnt realise that it involved any sky-scrapers or that it involved a couple of million tons of debris. 

The biggest problem at that incident would have been from a Bleve from one surrounding tanks. 

The circumstances bore no resemblance to one another.

----------


## scorrie

> No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation 
> 
> Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie?


I used to be an analytical chemist within the Nuclear Industry but I haven't lifted a pipette in anger in over 20 years so I am not up-to-speed with the latest DIY Nukeyersel possibilities.

I do remember that they used to use Tritium as a nightlight in LCD watches in the late 70's, so I am assuming that it is not that carcinogenic in nature. As far as 9/11 resulting in a cancer "hotspot" I can only refer to Chernobyl 20 years on and the fact that there is now no proven link with cancers, contradicting what was first thought. 

As the American expert on the Horizon documentary so succinctly put it,

"Chernobyl is a piss-poor carcinogen"

----------


## Rheghead

> I do remember that they used to use Tritium as a nightlight in LCD watches in the late 70's


There was a chemotherapy clinic on floor 78 in the North Tower, I am fairly certain that there could be the odd isotope there? ::  

Also, tritium is used in specialist instruments like remote operated clinometers and theodolites.  It is very probable that the WTC engineers used this type of equipment.

----------


## Rheghead

> Really rheghead, do you know it takes a long time (longer than the fire) to
> weld 2 railway sections using professional welding rig.  Jet fuel cannot reduce
> the modulus of steel... especially such a small amount without a blast furnace.
> 
> Those towers were 1 acre per floor, your thermodynamics simply does not
> compute with the sheer amount of energy involved.  We're talking about a
> 5x5x4 meter room of petrol here.  I challenge you, that you could not produce
> any forumula that would show how the tank of fuel managed to melt the
> structure.  The NIST hasn't.  No physicist will put their reputation on the
> ...


The explanation is fairly straightforward if I give you an example.

It is possible that a light person can stand on top of an empty Coke tin if they stand carefully.  If someone just happens to touch the can slightly and assymetrically on the side of the can then the can will crush symetrically.  The disturbance doesn't need to be a lot, just a redistribution of the load will cause collapse.  The WTCs were like a coke can, all the weight was mainly on the outside edges.  In fact the hardest thing for them to do was to topple over as there wasn't any side ways force acting upon them.

In other words, the fuel and materials weren't needed to soften a large part of the framework to bring it down, just a small part to start the load redistribution process with all the weight above.  I thought you were an engineer?

----------


## scotsboy

Roy wrote: 


> No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation but, they are mostly ailing with blood cancers otherwise known as leukaemia caused by low levels of white blood cells which is exactly what exposure to radiation (including tritium which is a radioactive isotope) does to the human body. As proven horrifically in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie?


I read the report Roy, the  highest sample analysis indicated 3.53nCi/L of tritium. If I can convert the nCi to Becquerels [Bq] (the SI unit for radioactivity  those Yanks still insist on Imperial Units), there are 37 Bq in one nCi, therefore at 3.53nCi we have around 130Bq l-1. I checked the Annual limit of intake for Tritium  - that is the amount which if you took inot your body would give you equivalent of the whole body dose limit for a radiation worker (currently 20milliSievert (20mSv)  and it is 1.1GBq, so therefore about 100000000 times greater than the 3.53nCi level  but that was 3.53 nCi per litre so if someone was to drink quite a few thousand litres of the water, then they would get a dose of around 20mSv  the risk of which (for fatal cancer) is around 1 in 1 250.

----------


## scotsboy

Roy wrote: 


> No, the case is still burst wide open Scorrie as thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers and will continue to do so for the next generation but, they are mostly ailing with blood cancers otherwise known as leukaemia caused by low levels of white blood cells which is exactly what exposure to radiation (including tritium which is a radioactive isotope) does to the human body. As proven horrifically in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do thousands of people dying from abnormally high rates of cancer hold any evidence for you Scorrie?


I read the report Roy, the  highest sample analysis indicated 3.53nCi/L of tritium. If I can convert the nCi to Becquerels [Bq] (the SI unit for radioactivity  those Yanks still insist on Imperial Units), there are 37 Bq in one nCi, therefore at 3.53nCi we have around 130Bq l-1. I checked the Annual limit of intake for Tritium  - that is the amount which if you took inot your body would give you equivalent of the whole body dose limit for a radiation worker (currently 20milliSievert (20mSv)  and it is 1.1GBq, so therefore about 100000000 times greater than the 3.53nCi level  but that was 3.53 nCi per litre so if someone was to drink quite a few thousand litres of the water, then they would get a dose of around 20mSv  the risk of which (for fatal cancer) is around 1 in 1 250.

----------


## sweetheart

> The WTCs were like a coke can, all the weight was mainly on the outside edges.


That's not true rheghead.  There were 47 load bearing columns in the center
of the structure that carried the dead weight load.  They just disappeared
apparently by your account and the NIST account... probably melted by
a fusion warhead about the only thing with the power to do such a thing
to such thick steels in such a short time.

Here is a result of an engineering test i ran, the big rock is your 'foot' on
a coke can.  This failure is being caused by blowtorch as a previous
fossil fuels fire could not cause any damage to the steel.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...l-wtc-bent.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/P1180023.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/P1180027.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...l/P1180005.jpg

----------


## Rheghead

> That's not true rheghead.  There were 47 load bearing columns in the center
> of the structure that carried the dead weight load.  They just disappeared
> apparently by your account and the NIST account... probably melted by
> a fusion warhead about the only thing with the power to do such a thing
> to such thick steels in such a short time.
> 
> Here is a result of an engineering test i ran, the big rock is your 'foot' on
> a coke can.  This failure is being caused by blowtorch as a previous
> fossil fuels fire could not cause any damage to the steel.
> ...


Yeah, but the can analogy holds to because the main load holders were on the outside, your backyard experiment hasn't faithfully recreated the load conditions seen on the day or in the structure.

----------


## JAWS

Am I right in thinking that we have now escalated from a controlled demolition by conventional explosives to controlled demolition by thermo-nuclear device?

----------


## Rheghead

> Am I right in thinking that we have now escalated from a controlled demolition by conventional explosives to controlled demolition by thermo-nuclear device?


It sure looks that way, I think it would be better if they coordinated their efforts to be a least consistent... ::

----------


## MadPict

> ...thousands of responders and New Yorkers are dying from numerous types of cancers...


Cause.......




> Doctors say the cancers can strike three to five years after exposure to toxins such as benzene, a cancer-causing chemical that permeated the WTC site from burning jet fuel.


Thermo nuclar device eh? Where's Steven Seagal when you need him?.....

----------


## fred

> The explanation is fairly straightforward if I give you an example.
> 
> It is possible that a light person can stand on top of an empty Coke tin if they stand carefully.  If someone just happens to touch the can slightly and assymetrically on the side of the can then the can will crush symetrically.  The disturbance doesn't need to be a lot, just a redistribution of the load will cause collapse.  The WTCs were like a coke can, all the weight was mainly on the outside edges.  In fact the hardest thing for them to do was to topple over as there wasn't any side ways force acting upon them.
> 
> In other words, the fuel and materials weren't needed to soften a large part of the framework to bring it down, just a small part to start the load redistribution process with all the weight above.  I thought you were an engineer?


I tried it, it doesn't work.

----------


## fred

> It sure looks that way, I think it would be better if they coordinated their efforts to be a least consistent...


Like the clique does?

----------


## JAWS

> It sure looks that way, I think it would be better if they coordinated their efforts to be a least consistent...


"If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, againandagainandagainand..." 

What was the old saying about Monkeys, Typewriters and Shakespeare? 
Personally I would recommend purchasing a published version as the chances of any of the others ever making sense could take most of this millennia. 

And I thought my Klingon Bird of Prey was being a daft idea, suddenly it sounds quite sensible by comparison!

----------


## Rheghead

> I tried it, it doesn't work.


Oh well, it works for me, perhaps you are assymetrical, you are fixing my experiment or it just goes to show that backyard experiments just don't recreate the build conditions of the WTCs. :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> Like the clique does?


What is that about a clique? What clique? ::

----------


## darkman

> Yeah, but the can analogy holds to because the main load holders were on the outside, your backyard experiment hasn't faithfully recreated the load conditions seen on the day or in the structure.


Why did the buildings fall at freefall speeds?

----------


## MadPict

They didn't - only the TruthTwisters claim that...

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

----------


## Rheghead

> Why did the buildings fall at freefall speeds?


What is the 'normal' fall speed of a 110 storey building?  And how does it compare to the WTCs?

----------


## scorrie

> I tried it, it doesn't work.


Did the contents work Fred? It says Brain and Body Energy on the tin. Where do you get this "ape" drink from anyway? ;o)

----------


## darkman

> What is the 'normal' fall speed of a 110 storey building?  And how does it compare to the WTCs?


I haven't got a clue but freefall means no resistance.

----------


## scorrie

> Why did the buildings fall at freefall speeds?


Well, they WERE free and they WERE falling. "Science made Easy" by Johnny Bollock ;o)

----------


## Rheghead

> I haven't got a clue but freefall means no resistance.


OK, you don't know, an honest answer, neither do I.  Until we have something to compare with we will never know if there was anything different about the WTCs.

----------


## darkman

> Well, they WERE free and they WERE falling. "Science made Easy" by Johnny Bollock ;o)


I take it john inman was in the house. ::

----------


## DeHaviLand

> I tried it, it doesn't work.


 
Yeah, but thats only because you used a Lucozade tin and not a coke tin.
Everybody knows that Lucozade tins dont have the 47 load bearing columns in them that coke tins have,

----------


## darkman

All I can surmise is that even if the steel melted like butter on the top floors I can't quite get my head around the fact that the bottom floors crumpled like a concertina? ::

----------


## Rheghead

> All I can surmise is that even if the steel melted like butter on the top floors I can't quite get my head around the fact that the bottom floors crumpled like a concertina?


I seem to remember that there were quite large sections of the outer walls still intact iow they weren't all crumpled like a concertina.  Though I don't believe any columns melted like butter.

----------


## MadPict

He wouldn't stand a chance if it was an IRN BRU tin.........

----------


## fred

> Did the contents work Fred? It says Brain and Body Energy on the tin. Where do you get this "ape" drink from anyway? ;o)


I found it in the fridge, it's been there a long time.

It hadn't gone green like the other thing I found though.

----------


## JAWS

> Why did the buildings fall at freefall speeds?


As far as the Freefall Collapse Theory is concerned the below site proves rather interesting as it checks the actual collapse of Tower One and compares it with what would occur in a freefall collapse.   
http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/Pape...irst_Draft.pdf 
The conclusion arrived at is that the Freefall Theory is False. 

I admit that both the Laws of Motion and of the Conservation of Energy are not exactly things which occupy much of my waking thoughts. However, I am sure that if there are any glaring errors in the information provided somebody will be able to spot them. 

There is an interesting article from the Herald which would appear to to explain where at least some of the Alternative Theories originated. Here are some quotes from it.  




> The annals of American history had already reserved a place for William Rodriguez, but he was not content with a mere footnote.
> The 43-year-old former New York janitor claims to have been the last man out of the north tower of the World Trade Centre before it imploded on September 11, 2001. 
> 
> With the 9/11 Truth Campaign, he insists that both towers were subject to a controlled explosion; and that, moments before the north tower was hit by a plane, he and colleagues heard an explosion underneath their office. This initial explosion was then followed by other bombs. 
> 
> During a recent lecture in Glasgow, Rodriguez appealed to the crowd to "examine the evidence". Yet the only evidence put forward in two hours of discussion was his own testimony - and it was clear he was out to convince our hearts as well as our minds. As he described the importance of being a master key holder, he pulled a key from his inside pocket like a magician revealing a vanished coin (incidentally, he used to be a magician before becoming a janitor). He wielded the key triumphantly as if showing us a vital piece of evidence. Of course, for all we knew it could have been the key to his drinks cabinet or front door.


The full story is at 
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/...197355.0.0.php 

Rodriguezs job can best be described as having been a Stairwell Cleaner of 20 years experience in the WTC. 

I do rather like one claim he makes that the Republicans were so enamoured with him that they immediately offered him money to become a Politician. 
One thing is certain about him, he definitely appears to enjoy seeking the limelight.

----------


## fred

> As far as the Freefall Collapse Theory is concerned the below site proves rather interesting as it checks the actual collapse of Tower One and compares it with what would occur in a freefall collapse.   
> http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/Pape...irst_Draft.pdf 
> The conclusion arrived at is that the Freefall Theory is False.


No it wasn't.




> Conclusion
> Energy is being added. The Hypothesis that this is a Gravity Only collapse is False
> 
> Hypothesis
> This added energy is Explosive Kinetic energy used to remove obstructing mass out of the way of the falling block and/or the
> structure has been weakened with incendiary cutting charges.

----------


## JAWS

> No it wasn't.


An Hypothesis is not a conclusion, even with my very limited knowledge of science I knows that much.  

I suggest, in view of your doubts that you check the full report by Dr F R Greening,  especially his Conclusions on page 21 which indicate that the collapse of both Towers One and Two and the time it took for the collapses is consistent with aircraft having crashed into them and the subsequent collapses being due to the effects of Gravity. 
In both cases the use of explosives is not required and is also highly unlikely. 
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf 

In effect, the theoretical calculations for the effects the aircraft having struck the buildings and the subsequent collapses, including the time taken for the collapses to occur, without any other interference to the buildings being carried out, is identical to the what actually occurred. 
No controlled demolition, no thermo-nuclear devices, and, much to my disappointment, no Klingon Birds of Prey, cloaked or otherwise, either. 

The calculations are all there for anybody with sufficient knowledge to check.

----------


## fred

> An Hypothesis is not a conclusion, even with my very limited knowledge of science I knows that much.


No, a conclusion is a conclusion.




> Conclusion
> Energy is being added. The Hypothesis that this is a Gravity Only collapse is False


You were happy enough to accept the paper as proof when you believed it supported your argument why do you not accept it as proof when you find it doesn't?




> I suggest, in view of your doubts that you check the full report by Dr F R Greening,  especially his Conclusions on page 21 which indicate that the collapse of both Towers One and Two and the time it took for the collapses is consistent with aircraft having crashed into them and the subsequent collapses being due to the effects of Gravity. 
> In both cases the use of explosives is not required and is also highly unlikely. 
> http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf


Those calculations are based on the pancake theory of collapse which has so many flaws even NIST had to admit it couldn't happen.

----------


## George Brims

Here's what NIST had to say.

NISTs findings do not support the pancake theory of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor systemthat connected the core columns and the perimeter columnsconsisted of a grid of steel trusses integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So that sounds like NIST agree with Fred - but wait, there's more! They also said (in the very next paragraph):

NISTs findings also do not support the controlled demolition theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

    *  the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

    *  the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. 

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.  

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

----------


## JAWS

Read both of them carefully again. 

In the first paper there is an Hypothesis which is followed by a Conclusion that the Towers collapsed in the time frame which occurred simply as a result of the damage and the effects of gravity. There is then a second Hypothesis .examining the possible requirements for the need of explosives which again shows they were not necessary. 

It concludes that the Towers did not "Freefall" but collapsed by the top several floors falling as one block and their weight causing the collapse of the floors below as they were struck by the increasing weight of the collapsing floors above.  
There is then second Hypothesis, which you claim is a conclusion. The information there also shows that there was no need for any added factors for the time frame of the collapses other than the Towers collapsed due to the effects of gravity after having been struck by aircraft. 

The method you have used by indicating that the second hypothesis is in fact a conclusion is typical of the methods used by the Conspiracy Theorist Brigade. . 
First take a supposition, then insist it is a fact. 

The reason I indicated the second Paper was after your deliberate attempt to misrepresent the findings of the original Paper. The second Paper arrives at the same conclusion but includes more details of the  Methodology and Calculations used. . 

If you read the conclusions of the second Paper you will see that it concludes that, because of the extent of the damage to the Towers, they would have collapsed as they did even if there had been no fire from the aviation fuel. It also discounts any need for the use of explosives to create a controlled demolition. 

If you also read the Papers carefully you will find that it gives a perfectly sensible explanation showing why the claims that there were explosions on the floors lower down the Towers as the collapse took place were no such things and were, in fact, as would be expected normally in such a collapse.  

I simply thought the second Paper might just be of assistance to those who could not grasp the information in the first.

----------


## JAWS

Well done George. So what fred describes as the NIST claiming could not have happened turns out to be something that they are saying actually did happen. That is exactly the same thing he did with the first Paper I indicated. 

It's a good technique. Claim something says something that it in fact doesn't say. 
The only problem with doing that is that some nasty suspicious people have a tendency to check things for themselves. It really is an unfortunate habit to acquire.

----------


## fred

> Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.


NIST might not have found any evidence but I did.

From the World Trade Center Task Force interview with Firefighter Edward Cachia:




> As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

----------


## Rheghead

> NIST might not have found any evidence but I did.
> 
> From the World Trade Center Task Force interview with Firefighter Edward Cachia:


What evidence??  There were people in the WTC who were convinced that they were hit by a rocket attack from a nearby skyscaper, so what??

----------


## fred

> What evidence??


Eye witness testimony that the collapse started below the level of plane damage and following a series of explosions.

That is evidence.

----------


## Rheghead

> Eye witness testimony that the collapse started below the level of plane damage and following a series of explosions.
> 
> That is evidence.


Unsubstantiated weak evidence.  Folks were convinced that the explosions were as a result of bombs and rockets, so what.  

I think airplane wreckage which is strewn over the plaza pretty substantiating...

----------


## JAWS

The explanation is quite simple. Google "Edward Cachia" and every "Conspiracy" site in the World comes up with what he said. 

Google any of the other names in his statement, all of whom will have been similarly interviewed, and surprise, surprise, what do you get, zilch, zero, nothing, not a sausage. 

Somebody has obviously searched through all the statements until they have found one which fits what they wish to portray. 

The statements of all the others with him have been conveniently ignored, either that or those involved in the "cover up" have taken only one statement which just happens to be the one which "proves" that their version is incorrect. 

TWA flight 800 which exploded and crashed into the sea off New York is a typical example. Eye Witnesses definitely say a rocket bring it down. 




> Almost at once, eyewitnesses were being interviewed on radio and TV who reported that something strange had preceded the explosion of the 747. Witnesses, many on the ground, reported seeing a bright object "streaking" towards the 747. The object in question turned in midair as it closed on the jumbo jet. Witnesses reported horizontal travel, as well as vertical. The broad geographical range covered by the eyewitnesses eliminates foreground/background confusion. To be seen as being near the 747 from so many different directions, the bright object had to actually be in the immediate vicinity of the 747. 
> Other pilots in the air reported seeing a bright light near the jumbo jet before it exploded. 
> In the days following the disaster, many industry executives privately concluded that TWA 800 had been shot down. 
> http://qwstnevrythg.blog-city.com/wa...ry_missile.htm





> Based on established precedent in aviation accident investigation, the eyewitness evidence in the Flight 800 case is more than sufficient to determine "felled by missile" as the probable cause. Based on historical precedent, such a determination is especially indicated in light of the fact that no physical evidence explaining what caused the center fuel tank to ignite was allegedly found ...
> http://www.serendipity.li/more/twa800.html





> Information uncovered in early 1999 now shows that TWA Flight 800 could have been shot down by one or more shoulder-fired missiles. The FBI was briefed by military missile experts in the Fall of 1996 that Flight 800 was well within the range of a shoulder fired missile. 
> http://www.twa800.com/index.htm


Of course, the above, including the Eye Witness accounts are far more exciting than believing that running bundles of electrical power cables through fuel tanks in the wings of aircraft is to create an accident waiting to happen. 

There are still those people who prefer to believe the US Navy shot the plane down with a missile, or perhaps it was a sailor standing in a rowing boat firing a Stinger Missile. 

Why bother accepting what really happened when you can invent a good Conspiracy?  ::

----------


## fred

> Unsubstantiated weak evidence.


It wasn't the only claim of explosions, not by a long way.

Evidence is evidence and should be considered, NIST said there was no evidence where there clearly was.

----------


## Rheghead

> It wasn't the only claim of explosions, not by a long way.
> 
> Evidence is evidence and should be considered, NIST said there was no evidence where there clearly was.


Evidence is something that is used in an investigation or court proceedings to prove a crime.  Since one man's statement is unsubstantiated then it won't be used as evidence so it can't be called evidence.

----------


## Rheghead

> Why bother accepting what really happened when you can invent a good Conspiracy?


It is not even a good conspiracy theory.  If it can't even be believed by a couple of Orgers how can it get passed the rest of us?  They must try harder, they must get proper substantiated evidence with forensics and eyewitnesses.  A good one would be a disgruntled thermite charge layer who has been sacked and has turned against the Government.  "It was me!" etc

----------


## fred

> It is not even a good conspiracy theory.  If it can't even be believed by a couple of Orgers how can it get passed the rest of us?  They must try harder, they must get proper substantiated evidence with forensics and eyewitnesses.  A good one would be a disgruntled thermite charge layer who has been sacked and has turned against the Government.  "It was me!" etc


You want a witness and evidence?

Here is a witness.

Here is the evidence.

----------


## MadPict

What is the witnesses name?

He was an EMT - he knows what demolition damage looks like?

It's posted on Loosechange for God's sake - hardly believable....

----------


## Rheghead

> You want a witness and evidence?
> 
> Here is a witness.
> 
> Here is the evidence.


It's more bloggy and youtube rubbish.  It is not evidence as it won't stand up in a court of law.

----------


## JAWS

Some Witness! The comment at the end by the person putting it on the Web says everything. 
"Btw, I lied. I did make an adjustment: I removed his personal information. *If this letter is true,* then he obviously needs no more problems."

----------


## fred

> It's more bloggy and youtube rubbish.  It is not evidence as it won't stand up in a court of law.


Eye witness testimony and video evidence which match but of course you don't even consider it, you just use your stock reply of claiming the evidence is fake. Despite the masses of evidence to support my case just because the United States government investigated themselves and found themselves innocent somehow everything they say, despite their appaling record for lying, is accepted as fact while you demand absolute proof for anything I say.

This rule the clique who have decided they own this forum have invented that everything someone says must stand up in a court of law, does it apply to everyone or just people who don't agree with them?

----------


## scotsboy

> Eye witness testimony and video evidence which match but of course you don't even consider it, you just use your stock reply of claiming the evidence is fake. Despite the masses of evidence to support my case just because the United States government investigated themselves and found themselves innocent somehow everything they say, despite their appaling record for lying, is accepted as fact while you demand absolute proof for anything I say.
> 
> This rule the clique who have decided they own this forum have invented that everything someone says must stand up in a court of law, does it apply to everyone or just people who don't agree with them?


I'm not sure if I am a member of the clique or not Fred, but Roy posted up some "evidence" which was claimed to support "thousands" of people dying from cancer in the NYC area - I looked at this, responded - that it was not a realistic conclusion to draw - and the mattaer is dropped. It "seems" the strategy used by those who think that something was amis with the WTC incident/s is to throw loads of information, links and scenarios out without actually considering them all and coming up with what THEY think happened -   I think there is a lot we don't know about that day. I would even think that the members of the clique qoiuld agree with this - but I think that everyone has the right to critique information that is passed off as fact and proof.

What I would appreciate is a synopsis of what those who think there was some kind of US involvement actually believe - becuase it changes so often it appears that the only thing that we can understand is that the US were involved.

----------


## scorrie

> Eye witness testimony and video evidence which match but of course you don't even consider it, you just use your stock reply of claiming the evidence is fake. Despite the masses of evidence to support my case just because the United States government investigated themselves and found themselves innocent somehow everything they say, despite their appaling record for lying, is accepted as fact while you demand absolute proof for anything I say.
> 
> This rule the clique who have decided they own this forum have invented that everything someone says must stand up in a court of law, does it apply to everyone or just people who don't agree with them?


I think that society will be in a seriously bad way if we ever start using Youtube as a source for evidence when damning accusations are made!!

You seem to be an intelligent and articulate enough person fred but it is as if you are blinkered by bias or a desire to see things that are not there regarding this topic, since you are putting forward "evidence" that only Simple Simon could place any real belief in. Reminds me of greyhounds at a track, thinking they are chasing a real hare, when in fact they are enthusiastically pursuing about 50p worth of rags tied to Granny's old carpet slipper!!

----------


## Rheghead

> Eye witness testimony and video evidence which match but of course you don't even consider it, you just use your stock reply of claiming the evidence is fake. Despite the masses of evidence to support my case just because the United States government investigated themselves and found themselves innocent somehow everything they say, despite their appaling record for lying, is accepted as fact while you demand absolute proof for anything I say.
> 
> This rule the clique who have decided they own this forum have invented that everything someone says must stand up in a court of law, does it apply to everyone or just people who don't agree with them?


Well if it was set to blow via charges then how come the buildings collapsed/crumpled first at the fire zone?  A good collapse in the manner that you describe would need a more even distribution of charges.  Plus, everyone at the crash scene would have heard the boom boom boom.

----------


## darkman

> The Pentagon has released a  26    page transcript of the "confession" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (pdf) who    is now being presented to World public opinion as the mastermind and    architect  of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  
> 
>   This "confession" was read (in his presence) from a prepared text by his    "personal [legal?] representative" at "military hearings" held behind closed    doors at the US Guantanamo concentration camp.He also claimed responsibility     for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Richard Reids attempt to ignite    a shoe bomb on an Transatlantic flight in December 2001, and the October 2002    Bali bombings in Indonesia. 
> 
>   In a statement read by his personal representative, he allegedly confessed    to planning the assassination of several former presidents, including Jimmy    Carter and Bill Clinton, as well as Pope John Paul II.


I believe he also confessed to tripping mary decker. ::  ::

----------


## scotsboy

What fission products? Al I see is a list of elements (as shown below):

Strontium - naturally occurring
Aluminium - naturally occurring
Chromium - naturally occurring
molybdenum - naturally occurring
Antimony - naturally occurring
Zinc - natually occurring
Barium - naturally occurring
Nickel - naturally occurring
Copper - naturally occurring
Manganese - naturally occurring
Lithium - naturally occurring
Titanium - naturally occurring
Rubidium - naturally occurring
Vanadium - naturally occurring
Lead - naturally occurring
Selenium - naturally occurring
Scandium - naturally occurring
Zirconium - naturally occurring
Arsenic - naturally occurring
Cobalt - naturally occurring
Cadmium - naturally occurring
Gallium - naturally occurring
Thorium - naturally occurring
Uramium - naturally occurring
Cerium - naturally occurring
Yttrium - naturally occurring
Germanium - naturally occurring
Thalium - naturally occurring
Lanthanum - naturally occurring
Mercury - naturally occurring
Caesium - naturally occurring
Niobium - naturally occurring
Bismuth - naturally occurring
Iron - naturally occurring
Silver - naturally occurring
Berylium - naturally occurring

There is no indication of any fission products in what I see when I click your link.

----------


## Rheghead

> Why was the rubble pile 9-10% of the orginal building when the normal demolition average is 33%?


There were 110 floors to the WTC 1 and 2 but there were several floors below the plaza or ground floor.  Therefore a lot of the rubble is below ground level.




> Silica dust exposure causes silicosis. Which can also include tuberculosis and lung cancer.. not blood cancers. Leukaemia is not an infection.


Well tuberculosis is an infection, unless the jab I got when I was 12 was to fight against silicosos?.  And leukaemia can be caused by infections.

----------


## scotsboy

Why not try looking at some of the more reliable sources of information on the internet Roy?

http://www.oncologychannel.com/leukemias/causes.shtml

This site provides the following as causes, and indicates the factors which enhance risk of leukemia:




> Causes
> 
> Although researchers have studied the many cellular changes associated with leukemia, it is unknown why these changes occur. It is likely that certain risk factors are involved. Many factors (e.g., age, genetics) are unmodifiable (beyond control). Other factors (e.g., environmental, lifestyle-related variables) are more controllable (modifiable).
> 
> It is now known that all cancers, including leukemia, begin as a mutation in the genetic materialthe DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)within certain cells. The external or internal causes of such change probably add up over a lifetime. Leukemia begins when one or more white blood cells experience DNA loss or damage. Those errors are copied and passed on to subsequent generations of cells. The abnormal leukemic cells remain in an immature blast form that never matures properly. They do not die off like normal cells, but tend to multiply and accumulate within the body.
> 
> DNA errors also may occur in the form of translocationsdamage produced when part of one chromosome becomes displaced and attached to another chromosome. Translocations disrupt the normal sequencing of the genes. As a result, oncogenes (cancer-promoting genes) on the chromosomes may be "switched on," while tumor suppressors (cancer-preventing genes) may be switched off. Many leukemias contain translocations that affect the blood cell chromosomes. Physicians often test for these translocations to help diagnose leukemia, determine a patient's prognosis, and identify cancer recurrence.
> 
> Risk Factors
> ...

----------


## Rheghead

> You are arguing for the sake of argument now me thinks.


Now if you came up with some real evidence and not something that can be discredited so easily as fantasy then I would take you more seriously.

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes, Rheghead, the subfloors are accounted for. Do you think 30 ft. of rubble above ground is 33% even considering the depth of the subfloors?


How many floors were below ground?  I think you will find the answer will satisfy any 'discrepancies'.

----------


## fred

> Well if it was set to blow via charges then how come the buildings collapsed/crumpled first at the fire zone?  A good collapse in the manner that you describe would need a more even distribution of charges.  Plus, everyone at the crash scene would have heard the boom boom boom.


I've seen a lot of people saying they did hear explosions and no one saying they didn't.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Now can you come up with anyone who says they were there and that there were no explosions?

----------


## MadPict

I watched it unfold on Tv on the day and I didn't hear any explosions. 

My testimony is just as valid as the other witnesses. Just because I was 3,000 miles away doesn't make what I saw and heard any less important....

----------


## JAWS

> I believe he also confessed to tripping mary decker.


Yet another invention. Decker attemted to trip Budd who was ahead of herat the time and came off worst. Yet another Conspiracy Theory trips itself up just as Decker did.

----------


## Rheghead

> I've seen a lot of people saying they did hear explosions and no one saying they didn't.
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming.
> 
> Now can you come up with anyone who says they were there and that there were no explosions?


That is more youtube nonsense, it is obviously a very well edited and polished work of art, have you anything that can be believed?

One thing that is obvious on that clip is that the buildings only collapsed where the planes went in (no surprised there) and it wasn't in freefall straight down.

----------


## MadPict

> That is more youtube nonsense, it is obviously a very well edited and polished work of art, have you anything that can be believed?


I am reminded of the excellent BBC Scotland comedy show "Absolutely" and the "Little Girl" character played by Morwenna Banks....




> Yes, I know what the Queen does. She is the King of all the country and the world and the universe. And she can see everything wot is happening in everywhere febus she has the special glasses wot was given her by...by..by Jesus. Yes. And she is the boss of of the world. But if she likes she can do anything wot she wants. But you had to listen to her foss if you didn't then she might chop your head off. She might chop it off with a really sharp knife wot she keeps in the drawer and wot she gets sharpened by the servant, who wears the shoes. And the Queen is very, very pretty and she wears lipstick and she is... um... twenty... no thirt... no, fifty, no she isn't any old because the Queen does not ever die or be sick. And the other thing wot the Queen does not never do is she does not go to the toilet. She doesn't. It's true. I know because I do.

----------


## Kaishowing

> .....That is more youtube nonsense, it is obviously a very well edited and polished work of art....


C'mon...be honest...You know that if it was shaking handheld video footage you'd then say it was so obviously fake for exactly the opposite reason! LOL ::

----------


## JAWS

> Silica dust exposure causes silicosis. Which can also include tuberculosis and lung cancer...


The information below is interesting



> Q. How long does it take after exposure to silica dust to contract silicosis? 
> A. It can take up anywhere from 10-35 years before the disease manifests itself.


http://www.reyeslaw.com/case_silicosis.asp#223 
The information comes from a firm of lawyers who specialise in taking legal action for Silicosis Claims as a result of exposure at work. It is not in their or their clients interest to claim that it takes a longer period than is correct for the disease to manifest itself after exposure. 




> What causes leukaemia?
> A leukaemia is thought to first start from one abnormal cell. What seems to happen is that certain vital genes which control how cells divide, multiply, and die are damaged or altered. This makes the cell abnormal. If the abnormal cell survives it may multiply 'out of control' or survive a long time, and develop into a leukaemia.
> In most cases of leukaemia, the reason why a cell becomes abnormal is not known. *There are certain 'risk factors' which increase the chance that certain leukaemias will develop, but these only account for a small number of cases.* Risk factors for some types of leukaemia include:
> 	Radiation. For example, previous radiotherapy for another condition. Many of the surviviors of the atom bomb used in world war II developed leukaemia due to the fall out of radiation. 
> 	Past treatment with chemotherapy or other drugs that weaken the immune system. 
> 	Certain genetic disorders, the most common being Down's syndrome. 
> 	Exposure to certain chemicals such as benzene.


http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000847/ 

The claims of incidences of cancer and to a greater extent other lung diseases is due to nothing more mysterious than the fact that rescue workers were encouraged to go back into the site long before it was safe to allow them back. In effect they were told the air at the site had become fit to breathe long before it had. There is no suggestion that there was any substances other than those which should have been expected as a result of the collapse. 

The only references made to anything Nuclear is that cancers can take periods as long as decades to develop as is shown by the time it took some cancers to develop after Nuclear Tests and the Bombings in Japan. 
Once again, the Conspiracy claimers have taken a simple example and called it an overwhelming evidence!  
The site below gives the full version of the article which the Conspiracy sites are taking selective quotes from. 

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/064...i,75156,2.html 

The reporter has overlooked that most dangerous of all diseases caused by anything Nuclear called the Overactive Imagination Syndrome.

----------


## Rheghead

> C'mon...be honest...You know that if it was shaking handheld video footage you'd then say it was so obviously fake for exactly the opposite reason! LOL


I never said it was fake, I said it was edited.  Have you not seen examples of edited footage that say the complete opposite to the original footage.  Now put that with the political will to discredit a President and the Republican party then you have the most likely explanation for it.

----------


## fred

> That is more youtube nonsense, it is obviously a very well edited and polished work of art, have you anything that can be believed?


How about a recording of the actual transmissions from firefighters reporting the explosions?

I'm still waiting for you to come up with one eye witness report stating there were no explosions.

----------


## Rheghead

> How about a recording of the actual transmissions from firefighters reporting the explosions?
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to come up with one eye witness report stating there were no explosions.


Of course there were explosions, a hotwater cylinder would explode under those conditions.  Have you any proof what was exploding? :: 

For a thermite reaction to take place there needs to be aluminium oxide as a byproduct and in large quantities.  Have you any evidence that this is the case?

----------


## sorghaghtanibeki

Hello

you speak about heat in this atrocity. over in scotland there is Castle Law a hillfort, a vitrified fort. Vitrified forts were build 600-300BC and were made by putting wood inside the stone walls. These wall then set onfire, the very high temperatures up to 1,100°C caused the materials to mealt into a vitrified mass, forming a material near like a dark glass, which strengthened the walls. If this is posible then why not the towers high heat was so high with tables, chairs plasticks?

----------


## fred

> Of course there were explosions, a hotwater cylinder would explode under those conditions.  Have you any proof what was exploding?
> 
> For a thermite reaction to take place there needs to be aluminium oxide as a byproduct and in large quantities.  Have you any evidence that this is the case?


Aluminiun oxide is a white powder, the analysis of dust from Ground Zero shows a high level of aluminium but that would be expected anyway, it being used in both buildings and planes.

----------


## MadPict

Could that be your "molten metal" pouring from the building you were so adamant was "molten steel"?.............

----------


## Rheghead

> Aluminiun oxide is a white powder, the analysis of dust from Ground Zero shows a high level of aluminium but that would be expected anyway, it being used in both buildings and planes.


Aluminium oxide and other compounds of Aluminium are another thing.  Aluminium oxide is almost chemically inert so it should be there and identifiably as such.

So aluminium oxide hasn't been found?  Case closed.

----------


## fred

> Hello
> 
> you speak about heat in this atrocity. over in scotland there is Castle Law a hillfort, a vitrified fort. Vitrified forts were build 600-300BC and were made by putting wood inside the stone walls. These wall then set onfire, the very high temperatures up to 1,100°C caused the materials to mealt into a vitrified mass, forming a material near like a dark glass, which strengthened the walls. If this is posible then why not the towers high heat was so high with tables, chairs plasticks?


The NIST report states that from analysis of steel from 170 areas only three showed temperatures above 250c and none above 600c.

The buildings steel frames were giant heatsinks, the fires localised.

----------


## Rheghead

> The NIST report states that from analysis of steel from 170 areas only three showed temperatures above 250c and none above 600c.
> 
> The buildings steel frames were giant heatsinks, the fires localised.


How did they measure the temperatures?

----------


## fred

> Aluminium oxide and other compounds of Aluminium are another thing.  Aluminium oxide is almost chemically inert so it should be there and identifiably as such.
> 
> So aluminium oxide hasn't been found?  Case closed.


Of course aluminium oxide was found, it would be found whether thermite was used or not, considering large parts of the building and plane were made from aluminium it would be very strange if it wasn't found.

----------


## fred

> How did they measure the temperatures?


From the NIST report:




>  Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas 
> examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel 
> reached temperatures above 250 °C: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner 
> web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had 
> sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 
> 250 °C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 
> 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors. 
>  Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to 
> a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using 
> ...

----------


## Rheghead

> From the NIST report:Using 
> metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples 
> had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.


And what does a temperature of 600C have on the strength of steel?




> In construction, critical temperature refers to the temperature above which structural steel loses its strength and is no longer fully capable of loadbearing support. Maintaining structural and important process steel building components below this critical temperature, which varies from country to country but is generally between 500 and 560°C, is an important function of passive fire protection.


It seems that the steel has lost its strength because the critical temperature of steel is lower than the temperatures that were observed at WTC so causing collapse, no? ::   :: 

Case closed.

Next!

----------


## sorghaghtanibeki

Hello

Rheghead, your moto; Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? 
I have seen these words, ah it is the words exactly on the first page of Richard Dawkins his book The God Delusion quote from Douglas Adams. the book is new here but should be read by all and will see the futility of religion when it causes these horrors

----------


## Rheghead

> Hello
> 
> Rheghead, your moto; Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? 
> I have seen these words, ah it is the words exactly on the first page of Richard Dawkins his book The God Delusion quote from Douglas Adams. the book is new here but should be read by all and will see the futility of religion when it causes these horrors


Well observed sorghaghtanibeki! :Grin:

----------


## JAWS

> Finally, this is the repeaters favourite one but, no, shame on you! You are obviously unaware that nearly half of the 9/11 victims families have gone public because they are outraged and are seeking a reinvestigation to their family members murders. I here there has been a documentary made about it? I've not seen it myself but, it's called 9/11: Press for Truth.


*9/11 "Press for Truth"*
One of the writers of the film is Kyle Hence of 9/11 CitizensWatch a site which claims that 
Any investigation of 9/11 must grapple with *bigger questions and hidden forces*. 
I think that rather says how impartial the intentions of the film are likely to be.  
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modu...rder=0&thold=0 

The film, from reviews and also its own P/R, is about a dozen or so women who suffered as a result of 9/11 (over half those involved?) who allegedly made so much fuss that they and they alone made the American Government hold the original enquiry. 
It presents itself, in effect, as describing how the Mighty Government of America was humbled by half a dozen determined citizens. 

Roy, if you want to see the film it is available from Amazon for less than Three Pounds!

----------


## JAWS

> The buildings steel frames were giant heatsinks, the fires localised.


Large skyscraper, huge aircraft, hugh collision, massive fire at the point of impact. 
Yes, I would describe that as the fire being "Localised"!

----------


## Kaishowing

> *9/11 "Press for Truth"*
> One of the writers of the film is Kyle Hence of 9/11 CitizensWatch a site which claims that 
> Any investigation of 9/11 must grapple with *bigger questions and hidden forces*. 
> I think that rather says how impartial the intentions of the film are likely to be.  
> http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modu...rder=0&thold=0 
> 
> The film, from reviews and also its own P/R, is about a dozen or so women who suffered as a result of 9/11 (over half those involved?) who allegedly made so much fuss that they and they alone made the American Government hold the original enquiry. 
> It presents itself, in effect, as describing how the Mighty Government of America was humbled by half a dozen determined citizens. 
> 
> Roy, if you want to see the film it is available from Amazon for less than Three Pounds!



Save £3 and watch it here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...s+for+Truth%22

----------


## JAWS

> Save £3 and watch it here:http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...s+for+Truth%22


I wouldn't waste good web-time watching it, let alone £3. 
A small group of activists making a public spectacle of their grief for nothing more than political purposes to ensure they can soak up the "glory" of basking in the glare of Media attention is more than I am willing to even try and stomach. 

My sympathy goes to all those other victims who suffered as a result of the actions of less than a score of Plane Hijackers and are having to suffer being force fed such Conspiracy Garbage every day by people living in their own little World of Fantasy. 

I'm waiting for somebody to find some way of dragging in the Bilderberg group who it would appear had nothing at all to do with it!  ::

----------


## fred

> And what does a temperature of 600C have on the strength of steel?
> 
> 
> 
> It seems that the steel has lost its strength because the critical temperature of steel is lower than the temperatures that were observed at WTC so causing collapse, no? 
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> Next!


No evidence steel reached temperatures above 600c != evidence steel reached temperatures of 600c.

It's simple logic, even you should be able to grasp it.

----------


## fred

> Large skyscraper, huge aircraft, hugh collision, massive fire at the point of impact. 
> Yes, I would describe that as the fire being "Localised"!


Are you claiming the entire buildings were on fire?

----------


## Rheghead

> No evidence steel reached temperatures above 600c != evidence steel reached temperatures of 600c.
> 
> It's simple logic, even you should be able to grasp it.


Lets go through that one again, the critical temperature of steel is 500-560C and the report says there is no evidence to suggest that temperatures did exceed 600c.

Now logic says that the fires exceeded the critical temperature. ::   ::  

You are defending the indefensible.

----------


## fred

> Lets go through that one again, the critical temperature of steel is 500-560C and the report says there is no evidence to suggest that temperatures did exceed 600c.
> 
> Now logic says that the fires exceeded the critical temperature.  
> 
> You are defending the indefensible.


The report says three out of 170 samples reached temperatures above 250c and that no sample reached 600c. Nowhere does it say that any sample reached 500c and no logic I know of says it did. <600 != >500.

----------


## Rheghead

> The report says three out of 170 samples reached temperatures above 250c and that no sample reached 600c. Nowhere does it say that any sample reached 500c and no logic I know of says it did. <600 != >500.



No that is not what you said the report says, it says that no where was there samples subject to temperatures in excess of 600c, which means that there is a band of temperature of some 100c beyond the critical temperature of steel where it loses its strength.

Anyhow, if you want answers then take a look at this report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It seems more plausible this explanation

----------


## JAWS

> Large skyscraper, huge aircraft, huge collision, *massive fire at the point of impact*. 
> Yes, I would describe that as the fire being "Localised"!





> Are you claiming the entire buildings were on fire?


Now I can understand how you become so confused about official reports containing more than a few simple sentences.

----------


## George Brims

> A small group of activists making a public spectacle of their grief for nothing more than political purposes to ensure they can soak up the "glory" of basking in the glare of Media attention is more than I am willing to even try and stomach.


Now Jaws you are coming off sounding a bit like Ann Coulter there. I'm sure that wasn't your intention. The hag Coulter accused the 9/11 widows of enjoying the loss of their husbands, simply because they insisted on an inquiry:  the inquiry the Bush administration didn't want because it exposed their criminal level of incompetence: the inquiry Fred and his ilk so stubbornly refuse to believe. 

I haven't watched the video in question yet, but it seems to me from the trailer that the women who were insisting on the truth about 9/11, the real important truths such as what a bumbling ideologue G W Bush really is and how he neglected his job from Day One and so got their husbands killed, have been co-opted by the foil hat brigade in their search for their brand of "truth". Maybe when I see the full thing I'll find some of the ladies really have lost a few marbles (and who could blame them if they did) and joined the whole conspiracy bandwagon.

----------


## fred

> No that is not what you said the report says, it says that no where was there samples subject to temperatures in excess of 600c, which means that there is a band of temperature of some 100c beyond the critical temperature of steel where it loses its strength.


They do not say steel reached temperatures above 500c, you just assumed it did.

Look at it this way. At 250c all the paint burns off steel at 600c the molecular structure starts to alter. If you get a piece of steel with the paint burnt off but the molecular structure unchanged then all you know is that it reached a temperature of more than 250c and less than 600c.




> Anyhow, if you want answers then take a look at this report.
> 
> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
> 
> It seems more plausible this explanation


They don't answer any of the right questions, like "can you reproduce the effects either physically or on computer simulation using the data you obtained?".

----------


## fred

> Now I can understand how you become so confused about official reports containing more than a few simple sentences.


I am confused, very confused. You and the 9/11 commission are telling me that a plane hitting a building has so much destructive force that it will reduce not only the building hit to dust and twisted metal but also another building two blocks away which wasn't hit by a plane.

Another building was hit on 9/11, the Pentagon, here are some photos of the impact area. If you can explain away the massive destruction of the WTC by plane impact how do you explain how little damage was done to the Pentagon?

----------


## MadPict

Simple - the Pentagon was constructed to withstand blast damage such as bombs - the WTC was not.

Is that simple enough?

----------


## fred

> Simple - the Pentagon was constructed to withstand blast damage such as bombs - the WTC was not.
> 
> Is that simple enough?


Ah they use titanium book stands and books with asbestos pages, never thought of that.

----------


## MadPict

Didn't you? You seem to know everything else!
Of course they do - it's so the Taliban Black Camels can't infiltrate and read what is on the pages. And we all know how heavy sheets of asbestos are so naturally they'd need some thing strong to put a book full of asbestos pages onto.


D'Oh.........


If you can't figure that out on your own, without the "help" of the reams of virtual pages of idiotic claims churned out by the "TruthseekersTwisters" then there is little hope for you. 

Go study some more pics of buildings that have fallen down/been blown up/been abducted by little green men/turned into gingerbread or WHATEVER......

Then look at damage to buildings which have been C-O-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-E-D to withstand bomb damage. Reinforced. Hardened. Armoured. Blast Proof. 

 ::   ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Look at it this way. At 250c all the paint burns off steel at 600c the molecular structure starts to alter. If you get a piece of steel with the paint burnt off but the molecular structure unchanged then all you know is that it reached a temperature of more than 250c and less than 600c.


So do you accept that the temperatures could have reached 600c which is 40-100c above the critical temperature?  

Having said that, the grain structure would not necessarily change even if the temperature exceeded 600c unless the cooling was any different to the rate of cooling when the original girders were manufactured, so it is a poor way of judging temperature.

----------


## Rheghead

> They don't answer any of the right questions, like "can you reproduce the effects either physically or on computer simulation using the data you obtained?".


They answer all the questions, it is a Q&A sheet to answer the very daft questions that you keep coming out with.

You are in denial.

Have you got a computer simulation to show the buildings were rigged to collapse which shows that the buildings just so happens to collapse where the planes went in? ::

----------


## darkman

George bush and his cohorts are the biggest threat to humanity since adolf hitler and they must be stopped before it is too late.

----------


## fred

> You are in denial.


Why would I be in denial? Do you know the meaning of the word?

All I do is look at the avaiable evidence without the premise that those with the greatest motive and opportunity couldn't possibly have been complicit. 

The person in denial would be someone who sees a world of us and them with us as good and them as evil. They would refuse to even consider any evidence which contradicted their view of the world. When irrefutable evidence was presented to them they would just declare it fake. They would refuse to take the path of least resistance and instead try to stretch the realms of possibility, clinging to any chance, any remote possibility which supports their view no matter how unlikely, declaring that's what must have happened while rejecting the obvious because it doesn't support their view.

No, it isn't me in denial.

----------


## Kaishowing

Just wondering what the people who are the most vocal on the existing WTC7 thread think about the 'official' version of the incident at The Pentagon on 9/11?

----------


## darkman

The official line is absolute rubbish, nearly as believeable as faye turney's statement.

----------


## Kaishowing

I was just asking because whichever version you believe (official or not) then logically it would follow that you either believe ALL the official versions regarding 9/11, or regard it ALL as suspect.

----------


## darkman

> I was just asking because whichever version you believe (official or not) then logically it would follow that you either believe ALL the official versions regarding 9/11, or regard it ALL as suspect.


I would say it is all very suspect.

----------


## fred

> I would say it is all very suspect.


Very suspect indeed that a hijacker not even competent to fly a Cesna on reaching the Pentagon instead of ramming right into Rumsfelds office did a turn which made experienced pilots envious so he could hit a part of the Pentagon which was almost empty apart from records of where $2.1 trillion dollars vanished to.

But suspect is all it is, unlike the WTC there is a great shortage of hard evidence for the Commission to ignore. If we had a tape of the BBC reporting it 20 minutes before it happened then we'd have some proof. If the entire Pentagon had suddenly turned to dust along with the building across the street we might have a chance. Even masses of eye witness reports of molten metal and explosions would help.

But then, even if we had all that, chances are people would still refuse to believe it.

----------


## JAWS

> I am confused, very confused. You and the 9/11 commission are telling me that a plane hitting a building has so much destructive force that it will reduce not only the building hit to dust and twisted metal but also another building two blocks away which wasn't hit by a plane.
> 
> Another building was hit on 9/11, the Pentagon, here are some photos of the impact area. If you can explain away the massive destruction of the WTC by plane impact how do you explain how little damage was done to the Pentagon?


The answer to the first question is, yes. 

The answer to the second question is that I suggest you make a careful study of the minute differences between the Pentagon Building and the WTC Towers. The differences in the buildings are only slight but, with a careful study, are noticeable. 
To assist you in the endeavour I suggest you look at the differences prior to 9/11.

----------


## Rheghead

> Why would I be in denial? Do you know the meaning of the word?
> 
> All I do is look at the avaiable evidence without the premise that those with the greatest motive and opportunity couldn't possibly have been complicit. 
> 
> The person in denial would be someone who sees a world of us and them with us as good and them as evil. They would refuse to even consider any evidence which contradicted their view of the world. When irrefutable evidence was presented to them they would just declare it fake. They would refuse to take the path of least resistance and instead try to stretch the realms of possibility, clinging to any chance, any remote possibility which supports their view no matter how unlikely, declaring that's what must have happened while rejecting the obvious because it doesn't support their view.
> 
> No, it isn't me in denial.


The fact remaining is that you have no evidence to back up your tripe.

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> They would refuse to even consider any evidence which contradicted their view of the world. When irrefutable evidence was presented to them they would just declare it fake. They would refuse to take the path of least resistance and instead try to stretch the realms of possibility, clinging to any chance, any remote possibility which supports their view no matter how unlikely, declaring that's what must have happened while rejecting the obvious because it doesn't support their view.
> 
> No, it isn't me in denial.


I dunno fred, that sounds like a fairly accurate description of my assessment of _you _

----------


## fred

> The answer to the first question is, yes. 
> 
> The answer to the second question is that I suggest you make a careful study of the minute differences between the Pentagon Building and the WTC Towers. The differences in the buildings are only slight but, with a careful study, are noticeable. 
> To assist you in the endeavour I suggest you look at the differences prior to 9/11.


That the buildings were different I don't dispute but Washington is in the same universe as New York isn't it? I mean the same basic laws of physics should apply equally to both.

----------


## JAWS

> That the buildings were different I don't dispute but Washington is in the same universe as New York isn't it? I mean the same basic laws of physics should apply equally to both.


Yes, and that accounts for the differences of what happened to them. The laws of physics remain the same, the buildings are completely different so the end results are completely different. 
For two completely different buildings built to completely different specifications to end up with exactly the same results the laws of physics would have to behave differently in each case. For objects of such size, science, as far as I am aware, has not discovered a state of physics which would behave in two such different ways. 
At least in this world that is but I'm not certain about in other parts of the Universe, even this one. 
If two very different buildings constructed in very different ways from very different materials had reacted in identical ways then there would have been a lot of Scientists doing a lot of re-writing of Text Books.

----------


## fred

> Yes, and that accounts for the differences of what happened to them. The laws of physics remain the same, the buildings are completely different so the end results are completely different.


Well yes, the results were completely different. The largest part of the contents of one found was half a telephone keypad, and in the other the pages of a book inches from the impact wern't even singed.

Don't you think that's rather a large difference for your explanation?

----------


## JAWS

> Well yes, the results were completely different. The largest part of the contents of one found was half a telephone keypad, and in the other the pages of a book inches from the impact wern't even singed.
> 
> Don't you think that's rather a large difference for your explanation?


So presumably you are claiming that the book "proves" that no explosion took place near it. Not more conveniently "passing demolition men", surely not!

----------


## JAWS

Roy, sorry for the cut and paste from sites that deal with people suffering from silicosis. I bow to you obviously superior medical expertise. Unfortunately I have not obtained a Degree in Law nor have I obtained a Degree in Medicine and spent many years gaining sufficient expertise to become a Consultant in the development of various stages of lung diseases. Personally I bow to the expertise of those who do have such expertise. 
In view of your obviously superior knowledge to all those involved on the whole of Medical Science I will not bother to challenge your total denigration of the subject. 
I rather think your assertions on that matter provides sufficient information. 

As for the pulverised concrete I have no doubt that there are numerous websites claiming 99% pulverisation just as there are numerous websites claiming just about everything imaginable and many outlandish claims about every aspect of 9/11. 

For those who wonder what on earth pathocrats are the following site provides some insight. It proves most enlightening about what we are meant to believe. 
I found it hard to swallow the concept of the Bilderberg Group conspiring to take over the World, this one goes a whole massive leap further :- 



> Pathocracy is a disease of great social movements followed by entire societies, nations, and empires. In the course of human history, it has affected social, political, and religious movements as well as the accompanying ideologies and turned them into caricatures of themselves. This occurred as a result of the  participation of pathological agents in a pathodynamically similar process. That explains why all the pathocracies of the world are, and have been, so similar in their essential properties.


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/12/330019.html 

In other words, Everybody, everywhere is out to control YOU! Somehow I seem to remember being told before this that, apart from the knowledgeable few, the whole of humanity was made up of pathetically apathetic morons who were being led by the nose by some secret group or other. 
Hell, even my Doctor is trying to take over the World now. I must remember to be nice to him next time I see him in case he succeeds. You never know, he might even tell me how I can do the same as well! 
Its all so reminiscent of ideas I have heard before but for the life of me I cant remember who it was. 
One word of warning - Watch out people, theyre coming to take you away! 

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf ?
That site has also been pointed out some time ago as well. 

Its all so reminiscent of ideas I have heard before on the board but for the life of me I cant remember who it was who posted them. 
One word of warning - *Watch out people, theyre coming to get you!*

----------


## darkman

> Coming to take me away haha!
> Coming to take me awa ah hah!


Did you google that roy? ::

----------


## JAWS

Try quoting what I actually posted and not what you would like it to have been! Once again, the tendency to deliberately misread things in furtherance of the "Cause" raises it's head again. It seems to be rather endemic when it comes to providing fuel for Conspiracies. 

With respect to "paranoia", I would suggest you take a close look at your last paragraph in Post 555 and the comments therein.

----------


## Tristan

> The answer to the first question is, yes. 
> 
> The answer to the second question is that I suggest you make a careful study of the minute differences between the Pentagon Building and the WTC Towers. The differences in the buildings are only slight but, with a careful study, are noticeable. 
> To assist you in the endeavour I suggest you look at the differences prior to 9/11.


Sorry I have not followed a lot of this but wasn't the Pentagon supposed to be hit by a plane as well?

----------


## JAWS

Not prior to 9/11, unless there was a "Cover-up" over that as well and the building didn't actually exist on 9/11. Perhaps that would be better "proof" of a White House Cover-up than most of the others being suggested. 

"White House" fools public into believing that a building called "The Pentagon" actually exists. Millions convinced they have seen it!"  ::

----------


## George Brims

> I am confused, very confused. You and the 9/11 commission are telling me that a plane hitting a building has so much destructive force that it will reduce not only the building hit to dust and twisted metal but also another building two blocks away which wasn't hit by a plane.
> 
> Another building was hit on 9/11, the Pentagon, here are some photos of the impact area. If you can explain away the massive destruction of the WTC by plane impact how do you explain how little damage was done to the Pentagon?


OK first of all no-one ever said the planes hitting the twin towers had enough "destructive force" to destroy them - they were not a pile of bairn's blocks to be knocked over. The energy that reduced them to a pile of rubble  - a huge pile of rubble, and a lot of dust too - was all the energy that was put in to piling all that stuff up into large towers in the first place. Gravity, man, gravity!

Next, WTC7 was nowhere near two blocks away from either tower. A N-S block is 50 yards and an E-W block is 100 in Manhattan. And it wasn't reduced to rubble and dust in the way the towers were, rather it suffered a major collapse but without as much in-built energy to be released, and mostly because of fire. 

The Pentagon on the other hand suffered much less catastrophic damage because it is practically solid reinforced concrete and only 5 stories high. 

Also in a later post you made a point about that unburned book on a lectern. That book was exposed when the damaged areas were pulled down by demo crews for rebuilding. Just ask the people who barely escaped if there was any lack of heat anywhere near the impact.

----------


## George Brims

> Very suspect indeed that a hijacker not even competent to fly a Cesna on reaching the Pentagon instead of ramming right into Rumsfelds office did a turn which made experienced pilots envious so he could hit a part of the Pentagon which was almost empty apart from records of where $2.1 trillion dollars vanished to.


Here we have a perfect example of the warped thinking of the typical conspiracy theorist.

1. Introduce a "fact" that undercuts the official story, that isn't even a fact, but would be damn fishy if it was - actually string together a few in one long sentence. 

For instance "not even competent to fly a Cessna"  - the pilot of the Pentagon plane may not have been great but he had taken flying lessons (BTW I have talked to pilots of both the B-2 stealth bomber and the Lockheed Galaxy transport and both said their machines were easier to fly than a Cessna  - size does not equal difficulty). 

And then "a turn which made experienced pilots envious" - all I have read about that turn was that it was a very shaky one and it was a miracle he didn't side-slip it into the ground. 

2. End the sentence with a "fact" not relevant at all to the fact of the event, and which no-one except the initiates of the sacred conspiracy sites has heard before, but which casts doubt on the "establishment". 

"almost empty apart from records of where $2.1 trillion dollars vanished to" - funny no-one has ever mentioned these records or demanded to know where the backup copies were kept. Now I only kept one copy of the stuff I filed for my income taxes last week and might be in a bind if the house burned down and I got audited this year, but 2.1 *trillion* bucks, and only one set of documentation?

----------


## JAWS

Now George Brims, stop introducing logic and common sense into the Thread. The pretty picture fred posted was meant to show the difference between a five story, recently reinforced building and buildings which were, at one time, the tallest in the World. 
I think the book is supposed to prove something but I'm not sure exactly what. 
Personally I think it was put there specially for the Photograph to give the Conspiracy Merchants something to feed off. I don't know who put it there but they certainly succeeded in their aim.  ::

----------


## fred

> Here we have a perfect example of the warped thinking of the typical conspiracy theorist.
> 
> 1. Introduce a "fact" that undercuts the official story, that isn't even a fact, but would be damn fishy if it was - actually string together a few in one long sentence. 
> 
> For instance "not even competent to fly a Cessna"  - the pilot of the Pentagon plane may not have been great but he had taken flying lessons (BTW I have talked to pilots of both the B-2 stealth bomber and the Lockheed Galaxy transport and both said their machines were easier to fly than a Cessna  - size does not equal difficulty). 
> 
> And then "a turn which made experienced pilots envious" - all I have read about that turn was that it was a very shaky one and it was a miracle he didn't side-slip it into the ground.


Well now I've read a bit more than that because I have read the Pilots for Truth website. Pilots for Truth are a group of proffessional pilots who are saying just one thing, the official version of events just does not make any sense. They offer no alternate theories, cast no blame, they just say the official version can not be true.

So we have Scholars for Truth, very emminent academics, saying that the physics of the WTC collapse just do not add up and we have a group of proffessional pilots saying that the official analysis of the flight data recorders just does not add up.

As what else happened on 9/11 3,000 people were murdered, there is no doubt of that. Have the American government proven their case for who was responsible beyond all reasonable doubt? Not even close, there are a lot of highly qualified people saying their evidence is seriously flawed, even a layman can see that the official story from start to finish is just too fantastic to be true. What do the people you label "conspiracy theorists" want? Just one thing, what the family of just one person murdered in a back alley in New York would get, a full and indipendent investigation, the evidence, *all* the evidence examined impartially and a judgement given by impartial members of the judiciary not politicians.

Why are you and the American government so affraid for this to happen? Why did they spend $40 million on deciding if Clinton got a blowjob and only $15 million on the murder of 3,000 people?

----------


## George Brims

Forgive me for being skeptical here, but I have little trust in any "XXX for Truth" activist group. If "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" hadn't taken such an active part in the last election, we might have had a much different Current Occupant at that big mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.

----------


## fred

> Forgive me for being skeptical here, but I have little trust in any "XXX for Truth" activist group. If "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" hadn't taken such an active part in the last election, we might have had a much different Current Occupant at that big mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.


Saying that because one organisation with "xxx for Truth" as a title were a bunch of partisan barefaced liars all organisations with "xxx for Truth" as a title are partisan barefaced liars is a totally illogical argument.

I don't judge everyone who's name is George by the one who occupies that big mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well now I've read a bit more than that because I have read the Pilots for Truth website. Pilots for Truth are a group of proffessional pilots who are saying just one thing, the official version of events just does not make any sense. They offer no alternate theories, cast no blame, they just say the official version can not be true.


Well it just goes to show that no matter how well qualified you are you still are qualified to give misinformation, except it just sounds more technical/plausible.

The climate change debate is a classic parrallel example of this.

How simple can it really be to crash a plane into the WTC?

----------


## fred

> How simple can it really be to crash a plane into the WTC?


First you have to get onto the plane, as a known terrorist that shouldn't be easy.

Then you have to manage to hijack the plane armed with nothing more than box cutters.

If you manage to get that far then you have to fly the plane to New York without picking up a fighter escort, that is near impossible. The standard procedure whenever a plane is hijacked is to scramble a few jets to keep it company, in the case of the WTC the jets would have been flying to meet the hijacked planes not chasing them so should have been there in plenty of time.

----------


## Rheghead

> First you have to get onto the plane, as a known terrorist that shouldn't be easy.
> 
> Then you have to manage to hijack the plane armed with nothing more than box cutters.
> 
> If you manage to get that far then you have to fly the plane to New York without picking up a fighter escort, that is near impossible. The standard procedure whenever a plane is hijacked is to scramble a few jets to keep it company, in the case of the WTC the jets would have been flying to meet the hijacked planes not chasing them so should have been there in plenty of time.


Yeah that is now but what about pre 9/11?

----------


## scotsboy

Just playing Devil's Advocate here Fred, but why do you accept that they only had Box Cutters - but very little else.........or are you intimating that they had MORE than just box cutters?

----------


## fred

> Yeah that is now but what about pre 9/11?


That was pre 9/11.

----------


## fred

> Just playing Devil's Advocate here Fred, but why do you accept that they only had Box Cutters - but very little else.........or are you intimating that they had MORE than just box cutters?


I'm not intimating anything except the shortage of standard hijacking tools would make the job a lot more difficult. A hand grenade would make the job easy, an AK47 I think would ensure compliance but I don't think a Stanley Knife would strike terror into the hearts of hundreds of people.

----------


## MadPict

> First you have to get onto the plane, as a known terrorist that shouldn't be easy.
> 
> Then you have to manage to hijack the plane armed with nothing more than box cutters.
> 
> If you manage to get that far then you have to fly the plane to New York without picking up a fighter escort, that is near impossible. The standard procedure whenever a plane is hijacked is to scramble a few jets to keep it company, in the case of the WTC the jets would have been flying to meet the hijacked planes not chasing them so should have been there in plenty of time.


The "box cutter" is similar to a Stanley Knife - if you have ever seen the mess a Stanley knife can do to someone you might think twice about tackling 5 determined hijackers, all fit young men, some of whom are trained in martial arts in the confines of an aircraft. 

But then have you ever had to try and disarm someone with a knife fred?

If the answer to that is "no" then may I suggest you drop this line of argument as you are not in any position to say how hard or easy it might be. ::

----------


## Rheghead

> That was pre 9/11.


No it wasn't, security was beefed up only after 9/11 or at least it was effect more efficiently, can you not remember all the queues in the airports?  America was just caught napping like in 1941.

----------


## Rheghead

> A hand grenade would make the job easy.


A hand grenade would jeopodise the main purpose of the mission if it was set off.  Even by pre 9/11 security standards, an AK47 would be a tad hard to smuggle on to a plane without fear of detection and jeopody of the mission.

----------


## fred

> The "box cutter" is similar to a Stanley Knife - if you have ever seen the mess a Stanley knife can do to someone you might think twice about tackling 5 determined hijackers, all fit young men, some of whom are trained in martial arts in the confines of an aircraft. 
> 
> But then have you ever had to try and disarm someone with a knife fred?
> 
> If the answer to that is "no" then may I suggest you drop this line of argument as you are not in any position to say how hard or easy it might be.


Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.


You are correct because Flight 93 didn't make its target.  But the boxcutters/knives were used as a weapon of fear.  Once the passengers saw that there was reason/logic in resisting en masse via info recieved from phones then they did so.  The passengers on the other 2 flights didn't have that opportunity as they didn't know that the plane was going to be used as a bomb. They were told that there was a bomb on board.

----------


## fred

> No it wasn't, security was beefed up only after 9/11 or at least it was effect more efficiently, can you not remember all the queues in the airports?  America was just caught napping like in 1941.


In the year 2000 fighter jets were scrambled in America 129 times to intercept planes which hadn't filed or had deviated from their flight path. It was standard procedure, fighters had to be capable of being in the air on 10 minutes notice.

They managed to have an E-4B circling Wasington when the Pentagon was hit how come they never managed to get an F-15 anywhere near?

----------


## MadPict

> Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.


fred,
One person with a knife can hijack a plane - it has happened. Now all of a sudden you are an expert on aviation security. 

The hijacker has the upper hand. Only he knows what he actually has to help him accomplish his aim. The crew and passengers have no idea and by the time they do find out, the hijacker/s have taken over the flight deck. They only need to seriously injure or kill one person for the passengers to realise they are at serious risk.

There is every chance those on board the 9/11 aircraft thought they were going to be held hostage - only when they realised they were heading towards the WTC did they fully understand what was going to happen...

So, have you ever been involved in aviation security? Apart from having your bags checked as you go on holiday? Or declaring you packed your bags?
Or are you merely using your skills as a Master Googler?

As for pre 9/11 - the security at US airports was poor. I met friends at San Diego airport in 2000 and we could walk through to the airside arrivals with only a cursory check.
Compare that to post 9/11 and it is like night and day.

----------


## Rheghead

> In the year 2000 fighter jets were scrambled in America 129 times to intercept planes which hadn't filed or had deviated from their flight path. It was standard procedure, fighters had to be capable of being in the air on 10 minutes notice.
> 
> They managed to have an E-4B circling Wasington when the Pentagon was hit how come they never managed to get an F-15 anywhere near?


I don't believe you, please prove me wrong.

----------


## fred

> I don't believe you, please prove me wrong.


How about you proving me wrong?

Till then I'll believe the eyewitnesses, the video and the photographic evidence.

----------


## George Brims

> In the year 2000 fighter jets were scrambled in America 129 times to intercept planes which hadn't filed or had deviated from their flight path. It was standard procedure, fighters had to be capable of being in the air on 10 minutes notice.
> 
> They managed to have an E-4B circling Wasington when the Pentagon was hit how come they never managed to get an F-15 anywhere near?


Where do you get that 129 number? Funny all those incidents never made the news at the time. 

Explain the relevance - what has an E-4B got to do with fighter cover? That's like saying there must be something wrong with the bus service because the trains run on time.

And as for that picture I would be very leery of calling it "evidence". A large probably 4-engined plane, or a silhouette that looks like one, is seen over a sandstone building, somewhere, sometime. The resolution is not sufficient to determine if it's an E-4B. The fuselage looks a little too fat to me, more like a 737, except the number of engines is wrong.

----------


## fred

> Where do you get that 129 number? Funny all those incidents never made the news at the time.


Why would they? They were false alarms. 




> Explain the relevance - what has an E-4B got to do with fighter cover? That's like saying there must be something wrong with the bus service because the trains run on time.
> 
> And as for that picture I would be very leery of calling it "evidence". A large probably 4-engined plane, or a silhouette that looks like one, is seen over a sandstone building, somewhere, sometime. The resolution is not sufficient to determine if it's an E-4B. The fuselage looks a little too fat to me, more like a 737, except the number of engines is wrong.


The photo was taken by Linda Brookhart who was Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, she had just been evacuated from the Whitehouse when she took it. The plane is the shape of an E-4B, it is white like an E-4B and if you look you will see a dark spot unter the tailplane, that is where two blue stripes which run the length of the fuselage on both sides meet, it is the only place they are visible from below. It can only be an E-4B, no other plane matches. It is over the Whitehouse which is restricted airspace, planes are not allowed to be there.

If they could get an E-4B to Washington why couldn't they get fighters to Washington? Why does the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission deny the plane existed?

----------


## North Rhins

> Why would they? They were false alarms. 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo was taken by Linda Brookhart who was Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, she had just been evacuated from the Whitehouse when she took it. The plane is the shape of an E-4B, it is white like an E-4B and if you look you will see a dark spot unter the tailplane, that is where two blue stripes which run the length of the fuselage on both sides meet, it is the only place they are visible from below. It can only be an E-4B, no other plane matches. It is over the Whitehouse which is restricted airspace, planes are not allowed to be there.
> 
> If they could get an E-4B to Washington why couldn't they get fighters to Washington? Why does the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission deny the plane existed?


Your aircraft recognition abilities are outstanding, you werent in the Royal Observer Corps where you?   
By the way Im running a 17 super TFT screen with a resolution of  1920 x 1200 pixels, with a Nvida GeForce Go 1950 GTX graphics card. Im afraid I cant make out the two blue stripes running the length of the plane. Can you suggest a more up to date system that would allow me to make out these details on your photo? Or perhaps a very large magnifying glass would help along with a very vivid imagination?

----------


## Rheghead

> How about you proving me wrong?
> 
> Till then I'll believe the eyewitnesses, the video and the photographic evidence.


I don't need to prove you wrong because you have yet to prove your case.  So far you have been pulled to bits on everything which a kid out of infant school could even do.
And also, this is another image from 'graven-images', hardly evidence, more misinformation at best, lies at worse.

----------


## fred

> Your aircraft recognition abilities are outstanding, you werent in the Royal Observer Corps where you?   
> By the way Im running a 17 super TFT screen with a resolution of  1920 x 1200 pixels, with a Nvida GeForce Go 1950 GTX graphics card. Im afraid I cant make out the two blue stripes running the length of the plane. Can you suggest a more up to date system that would allow me to make out these details on your photo? Or perhaps a very large magnifying glass would help along with a very vivid imagination?


A new pair of reading glasses would probably help and then you might be able to read where I said the stripes are not visible from below except where they meet at the tail.

----------


## fred

> I don't need to prove you wrong because you have yet to prove your case.  So far you have been pulled to bits on everything which a kid out of infant school could even do.
> And also, this is another image from 'graven-images', hardly evidence, more misinformation at best, lies at worse.


There is no misinformation or lies on the 'graven-images' website so I strongly recomend you retract that statement while you have the chance.

----------


## Rheghead

> There is no misinformation or lies on the 'graven-images' website so I strongly recomend you retract that statement while you have the chance.


I stand by what I said,  from what I've seen on graven images, when it is in relation to WTC etc then it does look a load of tosh/misinformation/lies.

If you want don't want to be accused of  posting misinformation on your more reputable website's space then I suggest you don't combine the two subjects.

----------


## scotsboy

That plane looks as if its been painted on that photo  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> That plane looks as if its been painted on that photo


It is amazing what you can do with Paintshop Pro and Photoshop these days. Though that pic isn't a particularly convincing example btw. It is the reason why these photos have taken 6 years to come out, the tricksters have been waiting for the technology to catch up!  :Smile:

----------


## fred

> That plane looks as if its been painted on that photo


I hope you're not suggesting that the Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois would do a thing like that.

The plane also appears on quite a lot of newsreel footage, sometimes just a dot, sometimes a blur but on some of it remakably clear.

----------


## quirbal

> I hope you're not suggesting that the Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois would do a thing like that.
> 
> The plane also appears on quite a lot of newsreel footage, sometimes just a dot, sometimes a blur but on some of it remakably clear.


I doubt that they are, but there are plenty of numpties within the US who would do that just to prove their fantasies.

Have a look around other US sites and you might see that the plane was apparently flown into the towers by some terrorists - but nah, thats just silly!!

----------


## Rheghead

> I hope you're not suggesting that the Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois would do a thing like that.
> 
> The plane also appears on quite a lot of newsreel footage, sometimes just a dot, sometimes a blur but on some of it remakably clear.


more youtube nonsense.

----------


## MadPict

> There is no misinformation or lies on the 'graven-images' website so I strongly recomend you retract that statement while you have the chance.


Or you'll do what? Get your big bruvver?..... ::   ::

----------


## scotsboy

> I hope you're not suggesting that the Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois would do a thing like that.
> 
> The plane also appears on quite a lot of newsreel footage, sometimes just a dot, sometimes a blur but on some of it remakably clear.


Why not -I mean if the President okay'd the hit in the first place.......why not??

----------


## Blazing Sporrans

> Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.


On the plus side, US airline security is so hot these days, it's just hard to imagine what might have been achieved prior to, or on, 9/11........  ::

----------


## MadPict

It is better - I could have driven a coach and horses through the pre 9/11 setup. Shame it took the death of 3000 people to wake the US up to terrorism...

----------


## Rheghead

> It is better - I could have driven a coach and horses through the pre 9/11 setup. Shame it took the death of 3000 people to wake the US up to terrorism...


I agree, even before 9/11, we all knew US airport security needed a complete overhaul.

----------

