Yes sums it up nicely and the Draconian laws have been useless for catching any terrorist yet but 19 drug dealers have been rounded up!dragonfly Jafe wrote:...thanks all for the conspiracy theory education on 911.
So first, the premise goes, Bush (and his backers) need an excuse for war in Iraq (or possibly to allow draconian laws restricting freedom to be passed).
It has been done before! False Flags In History have been covered.dragonfly Jafe wrote:So they create (or pick back up) a terrorist organization (headed by one of Bush's friends, Bin-Laden) and use it as a red-herring to cover up a black-op (conducted by ???) where 3 of America's buildings and ~3000 of it's citizens (many of which are financial big-guys, etc) are destroyed/killed, and the Pentagon heavily damaged.
Well to repeat myself I have not postulated a theory in whole or part but I do suspect it may of been allowed to happen much like I believe Pearl Harbor may of been allowed to happen. And just to note we have been able to remotely control aircraft since the 1950's and with today's tech could pull it off very easy you may recall seeing a video about ten years ago of a large heavy airliner remotely being flown into a large block of concrete to test fuel tanks? and UAV's are used all over the modern battlefield including Helicopters! Which leads me to wonder why we do not put this tech in all commercial aircraft to auto land them in a Highjacking?dragonfly Jafe wrote:"They" tricked the suicide bombers (and all the passengers) into thinking they were flying the planes, but in reality they were controlled by (???)
Is it impossible that "they" saw it coming and rigged the buildings?dragonfly Jafe wrote: because the suicide bombers could not have flown the planes due to there poor flight skills. The planes crashing into the towers were the cue for hundreds of shaped explosive and/or thermite charges to go off in a time sequence (apparently witnessed by fire chiefs and others, one beam possibly caught with thermite falling from it on video) that caused a sudden failure of every 10th floor, causing the building to free-fall to the ground.
Most of the evidence was taken away buried or shipped to China that is a fact that bothers me.dragonfly Jafe wrote: All bits of evidence (melted beams, etc) were hidden before and after the event (explaining the quick clean-up), and all persons involved were silenced 99.999% (at least for the last 5 years).
The core group of insiders would not be that large remember the convenient war games being conducted on the same day with the same scenario would of led many to participate without even knowing it.dragonfly Jafe wrote: Now, however, there are persons who are about to leak the story. Suddenly afraid (there's less than 2 years, and the Prez is a lame-duck now so his power is a fraction of what it was just after 911), "They" are powerless to prevent this disclosure of information (or are allowing it to leak out now, because even though it is close to-the-truth the following smear campaign will forever discredit anyone who follow this path as a nut-case, just like project blue-book did for UFO's)
Not much at least you took the time to ponder the questions look at both sides and do some very concise research ..dragonfly Jafe wrote:
Did I miss anything?
Well this part is true all over the News right now FBI coached the witnesses to avoid exposing what they knew ahead of time apparently a Federal judge is concerned enough that the trial may end in a mistrial or reduced sentence you cannot un-taint a witnessdragonfly Jafe wrote:Oh yeah, and since "They" framed the whole thing, they had to fabricate a story for the witnesses testifying against Moussaoui (but got caught).
I heard nothing about a round up apparently we our going to herd ourselves into a remote desert and then be sent into the future for reprogramming I fear!dragonfly Jafe wrote:So to prevent back-lash, I guess martial law and round-up of all trouble makers (starting with those of us here on Eplaya, no doubt) before '08?
How's that for some Fear! (tying it all back into this years theme)
We totally agree here looks like a perfect controlled demo!dragonfly Jafe wrote:...I do concur, however, that bldg.7 DOES look like it was brought down by controlled demo, and it does seem difficult to believe it could have been rigged in the hours between the initial crash and the collapse of bldg.7 (for me the most credible thing posted so far...)
Reading your previous post apparently you have more training than I sir but with that said the construction was supposed to be stronger than traditional and the hollow tubes were not light conduit very massive and I did not see any on site or in any pictures on the net that shows them failing, bent, or collapsed just cut clean like the pictures I posted I should mention for clarity that I trust those were cut on the site for transport which explains the burnt edges on the far end what I never understood was the clean cut (not torch or Thermite) ends I saw on the actual pile as if they had been stacked for 110 stories end to end without tying them together! I saw no broken welds, bolt holes, brackets nothing so that does lead me to question if there were design/construction flaws but they were strong apparently falling from great height without bending I cannot reference it right now but I also saw a old ASTM report from the original building specs for these columns that called for some very special steel which actually had a melting point that was way over 2000ºF degrees and would start to soften at around 1500ºF I understand there was only one place in the world that could make the columns in Japan. oh ok I found this quote from NIST site "Sunder says that about 250 chemical analyses indicate that most of the perimeter columns are "higher-strength micro-alloyed steels...or chromium-molybdenum steels that would meet U.S. specifications for heat-resisting steels." Most of the columns were made from steel from Yawata Steel, which is now Nippon Steel." Another NIST quote admits that they do not even have all the evidence needed it seems "NIST has run a variety of tests so far, including analyses on some of the more than 200 pieces of WTC steel it now has. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator in the WTC probe, says officials have located pieces representing nine of the 12 steel strengths used in the perimeter columns and nine of the 11 strengths used for the spandrel beams.dragonfly Jafe wrote:Oh yeah, and all those other buildings cited were post-beam construction (traditional high-rise). World Trade was radically different (hollow-tube and elevator core / lightweight trusses. I still maintain that there are likely failure mechanisms in such a structure that do not exist in post-beam steel structures (although I cannot put them into words due to my lack of training).
I have many problems with the conclusions that are drawn here from the temperature of fires "rises much more rapidly and reaches much higher levels than most building fires. It may have reached 1200 to 1500 ºC " From what I have understood Jet fuel burns at around 800ºF way to cold to melt steel or soften the special steel.dragonfly Jafe wrote:...
For any that have made it this far, here is an opposing viewpoint:
(picked mainly at random from the many that came up on a web search; http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... owers.html)
"The famous Twin Towers of the WTC were among the first high rises to use a tube structure, rather than the frame structure used in earlier skyscrapers. Indeed, they were the first very tall buildings designed without any masonry at all. Tube structure buildings are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns, with floor trusses that extend from the perimeter of the building to its core. The tube structure of modern skyscrapers allows them to withstand higher winds. It also eliminates the need for interior columns, allowing the use of more floor space.
While most skyscrapers built since the 1970s also have the tube structure, the Twin Towers were unique in other ways. Light floor trusses had been used in high rise buildings before, but not to span as much as 18m (60 feet), as they did in the towers. The core and elevator system of the building were also unusual. Because it was feared the pressure created by the buildings' high speed elevators might cause conventional elevator shafts to buckle, engineers used a plaster board system fixed to a steel core to house the elevators. This made the shafts more flexible, though also more flammable.
Cause of the collapse
There is no simple answer to the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed. Engineers, academics and demolition experts have not found agreement on the subject.
Charles Clifton, structural engineer at the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association, believes 'the impact damage, not the severity of the fire was the principal cause of the ultimate collapse'. This view is shared by Gregory Fenves, professor of civil engineering at the University of California.
However, Eduardo Kausel, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), believes that fire was primarily responsible. So does Robert McNamara, president of the US structural engineering firm, McNamara and Salvia.
But Oral Buyukozturk, another professor of civil and environmental engineering at MIT and Mark Loizeaux, president of US demolition company Controlled Demolition Incorporated, suspect a combination of factors caused the towers to fall.
When the planes hit the towers, they inflicted major damage on the structure of the buildings. As many as 40 vertical columns at the perimeter of each building were knocked out. It's likely that the impact damaged columns at the core of the building too – preventing people from escaping down stairwells, which were in the core. However, the towers were – initially at least – able to withstand this damage. Indeed, the force with which the planes hit the buildings was 95% of the wind load which they were designed to withstand.
What is not known for sure, is how much damage the planes inflicted on the buildings internally. Writing in New Steel Construction, Charles Clifton argues that 'having penetrated the perimeter frames, the planes would have done much more than just stripping the fire protection off the columns... The effect would have been to completely shatter and eliminate large areas of floor slabs and many of the internal supporting columns... leaving the rest vulnerable to fire attack.'
It's important to note that the terrorists had either done their homework or were very lucky: they struck the towers at precisely the right height. Had the planes hit the buildings any higher up, it's likely that the weight of the floors above the crash site might not have been sufficient to bring the building down. And lower down on the building, the vertical columns are thicker, and fewer would have been destroyed by the impact.
The terrorists certainly made sure they hijacked planes which had plenty of fuel on board. A Boeing 767 at the start of a long haul flight would be carrying around 24,000 gallons of fuel.
although much of the fireproofing was removed on impact, it isn't clear whether it would have been able to withstand an aviation fuel fire anyway. The fireproofing had been designed to protect the building from the type of fire expected in an office building: one fueled by paper, desks, and other office furniture. But this fire was different. The temperature of hydrocarbon fires rises much more rapidly and reaches much higher levels than most building fires. It may have reached 1200 to 1500ºC. Water sprinklers are relatively ineffective in combating a hydrocarbon fire, which is usually fought with chemical foam.
The structure of the WTC towers is crucial when considering the impact of the fire. The towers, being lightweight and devoid of concrete, were difficult to protect from fire. The weak links were the steel floor trusses – they spanned considerable distances relative to their thin construction, meaning they would have heated up quickly.
The fact that the offices were open plan increased the fire hazard. The floors of the towers spanned 40,000 square feet, yet fire chiefs argue that it's impossible to fight a fire in an open plan floor space of half that square footage.
The remaining undamaged columns were capable of bearing considerable loads, but to some extent depended on support from the floors to do so. Once the floors had succumbed to the heat of the fire, the integrity of the building was threatened. Core columns were not only bearing extra loads, but were also subject to intensely high temperatures. Once they began to buckle, the crash site floor collapsed onto the floor underneath. The effect was similar to dropping one multi-storey building onto another: each floor collapsed onto the one below, and so on. Once this domino effect had begun, it took seconds for the towers to be reduced to rubble.
Opinions are divided on the issue of whether other buildings could have survived an attack such as those of 11 September. Charles Clifton says that 'the very light and open structure probably made the buildings more vulnerable to collapse from the aircraft impact than would have been the case for a heavier structural system'. However, some architects argue that an old style frame building would have collapsed immediately, and that the tube structure saved thousands of lives.
However, fire chiefs and structural engineers agree that the fireproofing which existed was insufficient. KAFKO, a mineral-based fireproofing applied to the steel columns of the building, was difficult to apply to the floor trusses. Leslie Robertson, the engineer largely responsible for the structure of the Twin Towers, has admitted that although a plane crash was considered when designing the building, aviation fuel explosion and fire were not. This, believes Eduardo Kausel, is 'a key design omission.'"
The scriptwriter, writing for the part of Colonel Nathan Jessup in the aforementioned movie, had not wrote:
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, I want us on that wall, I need us on that wall. We abuse words like honor, code, loyalty. We abuse these words as the backbone of a life spent defending ourselves. We use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to an American who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way...
Rockdad wrote:Are you a Hugh mungus sock puppet?
spectabillis- From another thread wrote:Ok, as far as I can tell you are not HughM. The only socks I see under your account are ... Traveller, Observer, and Dustbuddy.
Dustbuddy wrote:Any questions?
rockdad from another thread wrote:If you’re not Hugh you are his twin! Or a relative All this anger! And threats! And Lies just like Hugh!
nasty hostile attitude that had caused me to put Hugh on ignore! And then you are proven to be a nit picker that can not get off a simple concept and continue the discussion just like Hugh!
You say your putting me on ignore how very funny just like Hugh would like to do except I beat him to it months ago!
Your use of terms, wordage, attitude, nit picking, hostility, etc
Rockdad wrote:Little prediction: Bin laden will not be found alive
lurker wrote:I think the most amazing thing about the whole 9/11 conspiracy is how Bush set this whole thing up--hid it from everyone--including the people working in the buildings, somehow managed to secure the whole conspiracy so that no one would ever talk, managed to get his great friends, the Bin Ladens, to agree to take the blame, managed to put sleepers on flight 93 to not only imitate actual passengers voices in phone calls to their loved ones, but happily die to make it look real--and do the same on the plane that hit the Pentagon.
And all in less than 9 months. Incredible--particularly when you consider that he's a proven idiot/alchoholic/coke fiend.
Oh yeah, the crazies are the ones who think this isn't possible. Right
Sockboy is right: everyone knows the 'Distress' thread is used for oblique personal attacks.
AntiM wrote:I removed the posts with Rockdad's name in them, and edited his name out of other posts. Whatever Dustbuddy does on other forums is his business and theirs and Rockdad's.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests