Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bull .

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.


Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

Shabby, Self-Serving Internet Reports by Pseudo Journalists and Activists Cause Webb Family Grief - It's Time for Real Journalists and Activists to Shun Demagogues, Hysterics and Profiteers

by

Michael C. Ruppert

A whole page of youtube debunking videos

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far.

Interesting point:
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...-pentagon.html

[RandomGuy]

Let the flaming begin.

Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.

If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.

An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.

The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:

1. Think of the stupidest possible
2. Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bull
3. This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy

IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.

THEREFORE:
IF the evil conpiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:

1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil

or

2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.

Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.

In either case it boils down to this:

If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be

1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy

or

2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.

There are no other possibilities.

Which is it mouse/galileo/whoever?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/


PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:

v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[RandomGuy]

Kinetic energy is a 8th grade topic, hey RG, since were doing energy calculations, what was the potential energy of the collapsing segment of tower?

By potential energy, I assume Dan is talking about gravitational potential energy. This is the total amount of possible “falling” energy if you drop something from any given height.

For the uninitiated/casual observer, the likely thrust of Dan’s question is to steer the conversation to the debunked “pulverized concrete” theory , as the idiot who put that abomination of science/logic out into the interwebs started with potential energy, and tried to prove that the towers fell “too quickly” by assuming that all the concrete in the twin towers was powdered.

PE=mgh
m= mass
g= gravity, i.e. gravitational acceleration or 9.8 m/s
h= height

G is a constant, 9.8 m/s/s
H is a height of 80 stories of 3.65 meters or almost exactly 292 meters. Remember we will assume that the top thirty stories of a 110 story building start falling. 110-30=80

So now that we have g and h, we can plug them in thusly:

PE=m(9.8)(292) or PE=m2861 (rounding decimal down)

This means that, any object, if dropped from 292 meters and ignoring air friction, will hit the ground with a force of roughly 2800 times the mass.

Here is an important point. What is mass? What is weight?

Weight is a force. It is the amount of force required to hold an object of a certain mass stationary against the pull of gravity. (see Newtons third law) When you climb on a scale you are really measuring the amount of force required to hold you at equilibrium (motionless) against gravity.
Think about what this means. This means that an object falling from 292 meters will seem to strike the ground with a force or “weight” of 2800 times what it weighed when it was held stationary, 292 meters above the ground.

The ground will then absorb the falling energy and then hold the body at equilibrium again after that energy has been absorbed to hold that mass at equilibrium/rest.

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bull ?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more re ed, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along…

[RandomGuy]

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

• The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.

• It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.

• If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.

• The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.

• The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.

• Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked pit.

• Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.
  The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.

• Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.

• Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.

• When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.

• The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.

• Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).

• The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.

• The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.

• Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.

• A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!

• If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.

• The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.

• Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.

• Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.

• The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.

• The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.

• Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.

• Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."

• More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.

• Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.

• When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.

• When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.

• When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).

• Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.

• The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of su ion could fall on their authenticity.

• No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!

• Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.

• If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.

• Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.

• When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.

• Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
  If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.

• When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.

• It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.

• If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.

• Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.

• Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."

• If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.

• The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.

• Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.

• George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.

• When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.

• If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.

• 99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.

• If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.

• Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.

• I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.

• Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.

• The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the pit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.

• "The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.

• The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.

• If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.

• If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.

• Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.

• The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.

• The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's su ious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.

• When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.

• Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.

• It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.

• It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.

• If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.

• People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.

[01Snake]

It's a ing cover up! Didn't you hear what Rosie said? Jezzzuss

[PixelPusher]

I;d like to know where they get the "spooky conspiracy" soundtrack music for these vids. Is there website you can download them from (for a fee I'm assuming)?

[RandomGuy]

I;d like to know where they get the "spooky conspiracy" soundtrack music for these vids. Is there website you can download them from (for a fee I'm assuming)?

You gotta buy the t-shirt and they will send a free "conspiracy sound effects" CD.

[=RTM=]

you went through allot of research to post this. Maybe deep down inside you need all those links to silence the real truth, or better yet, your conscious............

[Extra Stout]

you went through allot of research to post this. Maybe deep down inside you need all those links to silence the real truth, or better yet, your conscious............

RG long ago accepted that Darth Vader is his father.

[=RTM=]

Due to photobucket being slow tonight my uploading of pics and videos may take longer than I had reported earlier. but the truth will be told tonight, and the truth will hopefully set many free from the toxic mind poisoning propaganda spewing from RandonGuy's keyboard.

[Nbadan]

Mouse your funny. Everytime you ask RG what happened to all the concrete from two 110 story towers, its best he could give you is, oh...I think I read that somewhere...



...but that's good enough for Chumpy

[Nbadan]

Neither FEMA, NiST, nor the 9/11 Commission, has been willing to release the building plans of the twin towers. Without this, their scientific assesment of the collapse of these buildings has no scientific credibility. No respected scientific journal would accept a paper that specified that it's data would not be made available for independant assessment. Jet fuel - a 'cold burning' fuel - is a kerosine type substance. Under normal cir stances a kerosine fire of limited duration will not melt or significantly weaken steel. The fire in the South Tower burned intensely for only fifteen minutes. Most of the fuel from the impact in the South Tower was expended outside the building. The connecting steel girders and central core of 44 (47?) steel columns would act as a significant heat sink distributing heat away from the area of initial impact. Fire fighters on the scene in the South Tower reported that the fires they saw were controllable. The steel used in the collapsed WTC north and south towers could not have melted or weakened in the way alleged. It was allegedly graded ASTM E119 and was required to withstand temperatures around 2000F for several hours. These features are all significant scientific reasons to doubt the official explanation - or at least to require that the building plans be produced.

The central core of the building consisted of 44 (or was that 47?) steel columns wrapped in fireproofing insulation. They occupied 1/3 of the cross-sectional area of the building. That's a of a lot of steel, so we know the impact of the 767 did not significantly weaken the building structure. The official explanation explains the collapse of the buildings as a result of fire, not impact. Further, if the official account is correct then the floors fell away from the central core like records on a spindle. One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these cir stances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths. This has been taken by critics of the official account as evidence of a controlled demolition. Whether that's true or not, this is a further reason not to accept the official explananation under cir stances where they refuse to publish the building plans.

Further:

The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledged that NONE of the fire chiefs who gave evidence before the 9/11 Commision believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible due to the fires they saw on that day.

The north tower of the World Trade Center had experienced a previous fire. On February 11, 1975 there was a blaze that burnt out most of the eleventh floor over three hours. The firefighters there reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fires that occurred on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building.

The building itself was designed to survive the impact of a 707, a plane comparable to a 767.

The steel remains from the WTC collapses was hurriedly cleaned up and shipped off to China (by the same guys who cleaned up after the Oklahoma City bombing). Only 1% of the steel from all three towers was collected, yet no tests for explosive residues were carried out. Scientifically, this is unacceptable, especially in a criminal investigation.

[Nbadan]

Hey, look at this woman standing in the huge gaping hole where RG and Chumpy claim a fire hot enough to weaken iron was burning...

[ChumpDumper]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.

[txt msg]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.

9-11 WAS FAKE! IT WAS FIXED!

G.W. BUSH PLANNED IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Power Hour]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.

Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove but you don't see the steel burners melting or getting soft do you?
And what about all those kerosene heaters made from steel? how do they get hot and never seem to get soft or melt? Could it be the only thing that can melt steel is a blowtorch, a huge smelter like you see in the steel factories. or should I dare say the T word "thermite"?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove

[Extra Stout]

Mouse your funny. Everytime you ask RG what happened to all the concrete from two 110 story towers, its best he could give you is, oh...I think I read that somewhere...



...but that's good enough for Chumpy

On the north tower, which experienced the lesser loading of the two towers because it was higher up, 2/3 of the concrete debris was recovered within the approximate footprint of the tower. The additional 1/3 either was recovered outside the footprint or was pulverized.

The loading on the 95th floor at the time of collapse was approximately 34 times the amount necessary to pulverize concrete (3.36 J/g vs. 0.1 J/g). On subsequent floors further down, the loading was higher.

[RandomGuy]

Mouse your funny. Everytime you ask RG what happened to all the concrete from two 110 story towers, its best he could give you is, oh...I think I read that somewhere...



...but that's good enough for Chumpy

Gawd, dan, I used to have some small amount of respect for you, and that went right out the window.

If you really want to know, then dig into one or two of the debunking sites, and you will find it somewhere.
You will not do so, , nor will any other conspiranut because to do so would require you to question your assumptions, and that is something you share in common with yonivore, and all the other consservadrones. Yeah, you heard me. You and the rest of the conspiranuts are all in the same intellectual category with Yonivore, gtown, and all the others.

Different sides of the same coin.

You opine endlessly about "having an open mind" but when it comes right down to it, your minds are as closed as the ass-clowns of the Westburo Baptist Church. I can think of no more insulting association.

[RandomGuy]

The building itself was designed to survive the impact of a 707, a plane comparable to a 767..

(sigh)

Here is where the lies, distortion and ignorance come roaring in.

Cut and paste without fact check is the modus operendi.


IF Dan had not sucked up the entire thing without doing any critical thinking, he might have looked into this fact.

Let's finish the sentence here.

The building itself was designed to survive the impact of a 707, coming in for a landing moving about 200 mph and at the end of its flight path having used up most of its fuel, a plane comparable to a 767.This is contrasted to what actually happened that day when a fully fueled jet moving over twice as fast as was considered in the original design was used.
Oh by the way, did we mention that when you double the speed, the impact force goes up FOUR times?

Lie, spin, repeat.

Those little bolded parts get cast aside when the "truthers" start talking about this. If you look into a lot of what they say, you really find out just how much they have to leave out to make their stuff seem plausible, just as in the above example.

These ers are worse than the Bush administration.

[Nbadan]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.

that's not a crop dumbass.

[RandomGuy]

if the official account is correct then the floors fell away from the central core like records on a spindle. .

False. Read the NIST report. The initial collapse mechanism actually depends on the floors remaining attached to the connectors at both ends.

[RandomGuy]

The north tower of the World Trade Center had experienced a previous fire. On February 11, 1975 there was a blaze that burnt out most of the eleventh floor over three hours. The firefighters there reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fires that occurred on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building.

Let's finish this sentence too.
The firefighters there reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fires that occurred on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building that was undamaged by the impact of a jetliner moving at 450mph, and had intact water and sprinkler systems.

[RandomGuy]

The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledged that NONE of the fire chiefs who gave evidence before the 9/11 Commision believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible due to the fires they saw on that day.

Because as we all know, fully fueled jetliners slamming into buildings are such a regular occurance in New York that any firefighter with more than a few years of experience knows exactly what to expect when this happens.