Collapse Of WTC Buildings (Just the facts)

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
//On these conspiracy theories, I like to read up on everything, because I don't trust my government any longer.//

And so the terrorists win
The terrorists want to bring disrepute on the USgovernment.
The conspiracy theorists want to bring disrepute on
the USgovernment.

The terrorists want the people to be confused
and not follow thier leaders;
the conspiracy theorists want the people to be
as confused as they are.

Sorry folks, but I'm having problems telling
who are the terrorists and who are
the conspiracy theorists

AMEN, Brother ED!!!!!!!!

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
//On these conspiracy theories, I like to read up on everything, because I don't trust my government any longer.//

And so the terrorists win
The terrorists want to bring disrepute on the USgovernment.
The conspiracy theorists want to bring disrepute on
the USgovernment.

The terrorists want the people to be confused
and not follow thier leaders;
the conspiracy theorists want the people to be
as confused as they are.

Sorry folks, but I'm having problems telling
who are the terrorists and who are
the conspiracy theorists

Ed, I strongly disagree with that logic, whether or not I believe it was a conspiracy matters not.

To say that our government had no involvement, and to use the reasoning that if we believe they did then the terrorists have won, is nothing but an emotional appeal.
A very strong one, certainly, but it does nothing except make people stop trying to make sense of the facts they are struggling to understand.

It bothers me because I've had people use the same logic about me in other issues. I've been told that I'm not a patriot and that I do not love our country, because I believe our government has too much power and is abusing it. It's happened with other stuff. It's not nice, it's not fair, and I'm sure people hurt when they are called names that do not apply to them, especially names that are associated with crimes that can earn the death penalty, and crimes that cause the deaths of many innocent.

Please don't insinuate that those who question the given information on 9/11 are hard to distinguish from terrorists. That's a pretty nasty accusation against Christian Americans.

Words mean stuff.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Gina L.: //To say that our government had no involvement, and to use the reasoning that if we believe they did then the terrorists have won, is nothing but an emotional appeal. //

Sorry, but i'm a survivor of the OKC Terroist attack.
The same illogical claims against the USgovernment are
being made there as made in OKC. Being a survivor is
an emotional experience. It is very hurtful to survivors
to have our very own government accused of the hurt the
TERRORISTS did. Sorry, but coddling terrorists is
giving aid and comfort to the enemy - AKA (also known as)
TREASON

Gina L relating what some say about her:
//I'm not a patriot and that I do not love our country, because I believe our government has too much power and is abusing it.//

I belive that also. But I don't go around
hurting survivors and coddling terrorists.

Gina L: //
Please don't insinuate that those who question the given information on 9/11 are hard to distinguish from terrorists. That's a pretty nasty accusation against Christian Americans. //

Sorry. I describe shoes. If the shoe fits wear it.
See also my posts at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/4385/3.html#000040

before you judge me to harshly.
Thank you for your kindly worded opinion.

 

[NiteShift]

Originally posted by Gina L:
To say that our government had no involvement, and to use the reasoning that if we believe they did then the terrorists have won, is nothing but an emotional appeal...Words mean stuff.

Yes words mean stuff. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of websites out there repeating the conspiricy theories over and over. They are generally based on emotionalism, and their starting point is that our government is somehow behind 911. When there are those who continually try to tear down our confidence in our government and our country, then it's bound to provoke emotional response at times. There has been alot less meanness here, it seems to me.

This link answers most of the conspiricy questions.

Link - Debunking the Myths

 

[LadyEagle]

Brother Ed, were you or a relative in the WTC? Or are you speaking in a general sense? If speaking in a general sense, we are all survivors and we do have a right to question what we have been told by our government.

There are many conspiracy theories about 09/11. The truth probably lies somewhere in between all of them. People should not be made to feel guilty about questioning whether we have been told the truth by the people we vote into power.

 

[tragic_pizza]

LadyE, I invite you to read NiteShift's link.

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Gina L.: //To say that our government had no involvement, and to use the reasoning that if we believe they did then the terrorists have won, is nothing but an emotional appeal. //

Sorry, but i'm a survivor of the OKC Terroist attack.
The same illogical claims against the USgovernment are
being made there as made in OKC. Being a survivor is
an emotional experience. It is very hurtful to survivors
to have our very own government accused of the hurt the
TERRORISTS did. Sorry, but coddling terrorists is
giving aid and comfort to the enemy - AKA (also known as)
TREASON

Gina L relating what some say about her:
//I'm not a patriot and that I do not love our country, because I believe our government has too much power and is abusing it.//

I belive that also. But I don't go around
hurting survivors and coddling terrorists.

Gina L: //
Please don't insinuate that those who question the given information on 9/11 are hard to distinguish from terrorists. That's a pretty nasty accusation against Christian Americans. //

Sorry. I describe shoes. If the shoe fits wear it.
See also my posts at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/18/4385/3.html#000040

before you judge me to harshly.
Thank you for your kindly worded opinion.

Then again, if it ever is proven that elements of this government were comlpicit or were behind the OKC and WTC attacks then you may find that you have been the one coddling terrorists all along.

This is a government of by and for the multinational corporations not the people, as long as we keep deluding ourselves that it is anything but that and refuse to look at any of the abundant evidence that proves it, then we are all complicit in treason against our own country and it's constitution.

 

[rbell]

It's time to abandon this fruitless discussion. Let's leave this thread to the conspiracy theorists.

Out.

 

[poncho]

MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC collapse. Video

 

[poncho]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
LadyE, I invite you to read NiteShift's link.

The Defense Department defines nepotism as the situation when relatives are in the same chain-of-command.

An egregious example of dictatorial-style nepotism occurred when George W. Bush won the White House ? twice ? thanks to the key "swing state" of Florida, where the presidential candidate's younger brother is governor. In 2000 and 2004, against all odds, Florida swung decisively, the Bush way.

With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

The Chertoff article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16 "myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

SOURCE

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.

The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.

The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.

More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.

SOURCE

 

[tragic_pizza]

Poncho, Phillip has (and I have) addressed all of this repeatedly. Got anything new?

 

[poncho]

I didn't see him mention that Michael Chertoff's 25 year old cousin was the senior reseacher in the Popular Mechanics article.

Did the article debunk the whole conspriacy theory by answering all the questions, or did it only debunk a few of it's own strawmen? Did it supply references and footnotes from the experts whose information and analysis it relies on?

Thermate(link) is something Phillip hasn't touched on, he's doing a good job of explaining things don't get me wrong, but I'd like to see him explain how the top 30 floors of the south tower, well let me just quote Steven Jones who has already been dismissed as a fruitloop because he isn't asked to make regular appearances on network tv... like other "experts" have.

We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

SOURCE

Photos are provided in the link.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by poncho:
I didn't see him mention that Michael Chertoff's 25 year old cousin was the senior reseacher in the Popular Mechanics article.

Did the article debunk the whole conspriacy theory by answering all the questions, or did it only debunk a few of it's own strawmen? Did it supply references and footnotes from the experts whose information and analysis it relies on?

Thermate(link) is something Phillip hasn't touched on, he's doing a good job of explaining things don't get me wrong, but I'd like to see him explain how the top 30 floors of the south tower, well let me just quote Steven Jones who has already been dismissed as a fruitloop because he isn't asked to make regular appearances on network tv... like other "experts" have.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

SOURCE

Photos are provided in the link. </font>[/QUOTE]Thermite has been discussed exhaustively.

Also discussed has been the temperature generated by massive amounts of burning kerosene, along with the tendency of liquid to spill in the direcion of the pull of gravity.

This site brings up dozens of things we've discussed.

The buildings collapsed because the method of construction, while a blessing for those who like to build very tall buildings, doesn't lend itself to being hit by very large planes. The examples of collapse the web page offers are insisting that apples look like oranges -- horizontal stresses placed on buildings in earthquakes produce results far different from those hit by large, fully-fueled jetliners.

The idea that the core collapsed before the outer walls is consistent with the construction of the building and its structural failure due to flames and impact. The floors were "hung" against the outer steel "skin," thus when the hangars gave way, the center mass would have shifted a few milliseconds before the outer shell buckled. The apparent "disappearance" of the top thirty floors can be explained by the phenomenon of impact. The "smoke" on the columns in the photo could be from debris (after all, concrete makes a LOT of dust) or from kerosene fire, or (most likely) from both.

The oint, Poncho, is that nothing that has been raised on any of these tinfoil-hat sites you keep posting has legs.

 

[Ed Edwards]

NiteShift: // There are dozens, maybe hundreds of websites
out there repeating the conspiricy theories over and over.
They are generally based on emotionalism, and their
starting point is that our government is somehow behind 911.
When there are those who continually try to tear down
our confidence in our government and our country,
then it's bound to provoke emotional response at times.//

Amen, Brother NiteShift - preach it!

I still have a hard time telling those who make conspiracy
theory web sites from the terrorists. IMHO the
conspiracy theory people assault the integrity
of tens of thousands, maybe millions - the terrorists
just kill a few thousand - the conspiracy theory folk
are the worse Please note i'm dissing
web site hosts for conspiracy theories NOT those who read
the sites and get fooled by them. Why otherwise kindly
people stay confused by these terrorist-fellow-travellers
when there are knowledgable folk who skillfully debunk the
myths INVENTED to SPREAD THE TERROR of the bombing.

LadyEagle: //Brother Ed, were you or a relative in the WTC?//

The answer is not important. THe answer is 'no'.

LadyEagle: //People should not be made to feel guilty
about questioning whether we have been told the truth
by the people we vote into power.//

I can't make anybody feel guilty, 'guilty' comes from
within a person. Nor do I judge anybody who posts here
in regards to if they should feel guilty or not.

I do however feel guilty about one thing. In 1995 when
OKC was bombed killing 168 people (171 if you count the
unborn as 'people') and in following times, I could have
listed almost a month-by-month growth of the anti-intellectual
growth of TERROR. I'd even have probably predicted for 5-½-years
after 2001sept7 the same thing that happened to me
5½-years after OKC (that would have been in Sept 2000).
And that prediction is inane discussions among nice people
on otherwise reasonable religious boards about the USgovernment
committing treason against itself.
Only in the USofA can it happen.

(as one Red Chinaman said: I don't see what you USers have
that is so great. YOu think it is great to dis your governemnt;
why anybody in China can dis your government????)

Nobody ever blamed the emperor of Japan for ordering the
destruciton of Hiroshima??? Look how good it makes the
emperor look in 2000

Rbell: //It's time to abandon this fruitless discussion.
Let's leave this thread to the conspiracy theorists.//

Sorry, I like the Baptist Board (BB) and don't want to see it
become a conspiracy theory hotbed and get the BB destroyed.
Another nearby bulletin board (bb)* doesn't allow conspiracy
theory conversations. Such conversations are not only counter
to public responsibility, they can cause the owners of the bb
(including BB) to be liable for more than the board is worth.

*'Rapture Ready' (RR) is the bb.

 

[LadyEagle]

Brother Ed, most political conversations on any BB are counter to public responsibility.

 

[Ed Edwards]

If what the conspiracy nuts says is true,
that the USGovernment is 'out to get us'
then the USGovernment would be rounding up
those who post it on the internet.
The fact that such junk is still posted
proves the untruth of such conspiracy
idioticy.

 

[LadyEagle]

All in good time, Brother Ed. All in good time.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I do not know a Van Romero and I certainly don't remember him being director of energetic matls. Although, I will not say that he wasn't; however. If he was the Director of the department he probably is a manager and not a great engineer. I have seen very few directors who were good managers and good engineers both.

For these two people, one of which might have some experience and the other probably having zero experience with real energetics. And, if he has any experience, it no doubt is probably not very much.

There are also people who work in all businesses who buy into conspiracy theories.

Anyway, regardless of what they say, I will state to their face that it is ludicrus to believe that energetics that were planted could survive the crash and heat.

I will also give you another clue on why there were no explosives in the building. The Trade Center has been a target of terrorism before. It would be next to impossible for someone to "sneak" energetics into those particular buildings.

What differance does it make whether YOU know him or not?


Albuquerque Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

September 11, 2001
Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

I cannot resolve this link:

Albuquerque Journal
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm

???

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by poncho:

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
LadyE, I invite you to read NiteShift's link.

The Defense Department defines nepotism as the situation when relatives are in the same chain-of-command.

An egregious example of dictatorial-style nepotism occurred when George W. Bush won the White House ? twice ? thanks to the key "swing state" of Florida, where the presidential candidate's younger brother is governor. In 2000 and 2004, against all odds, Florida swung decisively, the Bush way.

Poncho, what has this garbage got to do with the WTC? The opening was to discuss the technical issues of the buildings collapse. If you want to go off on another conspiracy tangent then open aanother thread please.