MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room - Re: For the record 9/11 conspiracy theorist

> Drivel. Okay. Well, if you know the standard "truther" routine then I guess it's up
> to you to point out how those allegations are incorrect without resorting to childish
> insults and (other) ad-hominem attacks. You made the topic.

I don't feel calling it drivel is an attack. Lighten up Frances.

> "Truth" be known, what I'll say next is essentially what I originally typed out
> earlier this morning, but lost it due to closing the wrong tab. So, upon your
> request.... I promise not to disappoint & Thank you for the opportunity to let me
> share this.
>
>
> 1) The supposed "pancaking" that occurred. Why didn't we see a consistent pattern in
> the layers of what should have been the other floors? Not all of the floors were on
> fire now were they? Yet, strangely enough, there wasn't anything that was
> recognizable in any place or part of the debris.

You had 800 million pounds of load. That is a fuck-load of potential energy. Go outside and smash a chip of concrete with a 2 lb hammer. Multiply the force of that hammer by 400 million.

One major point that all the consiracies overlook when comparing these buildings to other botched demo jobs is the construction of these buildings. They are not traditional steel framed buildings. They were not built to handle the unbelievable stress loads they were put under. Had they been a traditional steel web design, they most likely would not have fallen.

Yes, yes they were 'designed' to take a hit from a 707. Essentially they did. The design failed.

> 2) But I'm sure investigators/scientists would've had time to study the crime scene.
> Oh wait, the cleanup crew removed everything before scientists could study anything.
> And if they couldn't investigate on site - then at least at another location. But no.
> They even shipped most of the steel beams over to some place in China. But I guess
> just because something is regarded as one of the greatest national tragedies isn't
> important enough to study and find answers for. Seems kind of strange, don't you
> agree?

Not, it doesn't. How many people have taken ill from the debris? I have an idea, lets leave that shit around for a while.

If it was in fact shipped to China, I'd say it would have more to do with their "ability" to handle toxic/hazardous materials without the EPA being up their ass. Don't claim they could have just waived restrictions either. They could have done that ~before~ the incident and saved themselves the trouble of "blowing up the buildings" to remove the asbestos as you claim...

> 3) The unusually high amount of Put Options that were placed on United and American
> Airlines before the attacks.

Those put options were not placed by United, American did make stock moves a few days later, but largely in response to the moves on United and large purchases of their own stock. The firm placing those puts were responsible for 95% of the action.

Could they have had foreknowledge? Sure. I won't dispute that. Does it draw ANY conclusions as to how the building was to be taken down? Not at all. If anything it suggests events unfolded as they seem fortold, by a plane strike.

> 4) Leaseholder Larry Silverstein insuring the buildings for (ha-ha, lots of money)
> against (other things, as well as) terrorist attacks, then being rewarded double
> since both buildings were attacked which counted as 2 attacks. How convenient. Also,
> he didn't show up for work on that day (9-11-01), but I'm sure he's not there most of
> the time... Right?

He bought the buildings 2 months prior, no? Was he not supposed to insure them? I'm required to have insurance on my house as a condition of my mortgage. If a plane hits it, I'm getting paid too. If I don't get paid appropriately, I'm going to fight the insurance companies too. (I have in the past, if you recall).

I fail to see the point.

> 5) Both towers needed to be renovated to remove asbestos (a health hazard) which
> would have cost Mr. Silverstein millions of dollars but was never able to get around
> to it due to the attacks. Again, how convenient.

Lucky for him. Asbestos doesn't clean itself up overnight.

> 6) The inner/central steel columns of the buildings. If the alleged "pancaking" of
> all the floors broke off from each level along this column - then why didn't they
> (some or even any) stay intact? Are we to believe that this integral part of the
> building's support was that weak?

Again, 800 MILLION tons of potential energy. Even 1/10th of that is a sufficient wrecking ball for any material given the right conditions. The right conditions were present.

How do you heat a fire? Feed it. Oxygen and fuel. pump these in faster, get a hotter flame. Have you ever felt the winds at 1000ft? They are pretty significant. Better than a breeze. Take a building with a direct route to air straight down. Punch a hole through it at the 700ft level. You've just created a forge.

> 7) ^That's disregarding the fact that the buildings were designed to withstand
> impacts of large planes. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in
> an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC

traveling at 600
> miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local
> damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would
> not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
>
> "600 mph". The 2 planes were said to have been traveling at 466 mph (when Flight 11
> hits the North Tower) and 590 mph (when Flight 175 hits the South Tower).

"Designed". To my knowledge, this is the first test of that design. It failed. They were also fully loaded with fuel. It wasn't the hit alone that brought them down. It was the fire as well.

>

The Squibs. The plumes of smoke being forced out of windows of floors well below
> the collapsing parts of the building above said 'squibs'. You could say that these
> windows were already knocked out by people jumping. But, again, not all floors were
> on fire, so why would windows be missing many floors below the impact area/s? Is air
> pressure "escaping from the elevator shafts" really that powerful to knock out a
> window? There isn't any other place this surge of air can go to? And why so much
> debris/dust/smoke? Was all that stuff already in those spaces?

The building was just hit by a damned plane. Have you ever had someone burn popcorn in the cafeteria, and the whole building stinks as a result? Smoke, fire, vibrations and stress all travel.

> 9) No military planes were available to intercept the planes that lost radio contact
> and went off course.

Things were not the same as they are post 9/11. Look at the Payne Stewart incident. That plane wasn't intercepted for better than an hour.

> 10) A good number of experts in the fields of demolition agree that the rate of the
> buildings falling was at freefall speed. If things (e.g. "floors") were to "pancake"
> (assuming that was even plausible) it shouldn't have had so much energy. And the
> pyroplastic clouds are a classic example of explosions. Not to mention the debris
> that was pushed out/blown away with so much force. This caused damage to surrounding
> buildings. What would cause so much force as to push out concrete and steel? A mere
> collapse? Or something with a great deal more horizontal force?

But it wasn't free fall speed. Not even close. Less than half, actually. That math is not disputable. Free fall would have been ~8s. Estimates took it falling at 16-20s

The phrase "...it should not have had so much energy..." it telling about your understanding of basic physics. Force = Mass x Acceleration. The "hammer" slamming down on floors below was gaining both mass AND acceleration with each floor collapsed. Load ratings per floor are a constant. Each floor was hit with a greater force than the floor above it. Ever used a slide hammer? This was a giant slide hammer that increased its output with every floor it hit.

Also take into account you weren't fighting a structure that was in great shape. Ever see a concrete road buckle under summer heat? That's just at ~100F. Set that same concrete in a fire. It's going to weaken if it has any moisture in it whatsoever. Furthermore, concrete has excellent compressive strength, but sucks when it comes to tensile strength. I would call a 757 hitting it perpendicular a tensile stress.

> 11) Why didn't Bush take action upon hearing the news of the attacks? Even immediate
> action!? Why wasn't he worried that his location wouldn't be attacked too? His
> itinerary was (surely) known before the events of 9-11. If terrorists had enough
> intelligence and (obvious) ingenuity to do some of the other things they miraculously
> got away with - why wouldn't they target Bush too?

I'm not a terrorist. I don't know. Ask them. I'm also not Bush. Ether way I would have left the room, knowing of the attack or not.

> 12) A quote from Bush himself; "nobody in our government....could envisage flying air
> planes into buildings" Really?

Again, I'm not Bush. Neither are you. Ask him. "Fool me once and I can't be fooled again" I guess. While you are there, can you find out if he's figured out what a sovereign nation is yet?

> 13) Lack of plane debris from the alleged Pentagon crash. And if there were (ever
> actually any recoverable) debris - why wasn't it taken to a hangar to be studied like
> other plane crashes?
>

An aircraft is essentially a tin can with a solid frame inside. The Pentagon was very, very thick concrete. Thicker than the towers. It was recycled on impact.

> 14) An impact zone that isn't consistent with the size and/or shape of a Boeing 757,
> not to mention the "miraculous" ability of the pilot to crash the plane into the side
> of the building without so much as leaving any skid marks on the grass, or any damage
> that would have resulted to the foundation that the planes engines would've hit, etc.
> etc.

See above. I wouldn't call crashing a plane a miraculous ability.

> 15) Cheney's order to "Stand Down".
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlM8Sui6-X0

Conjecture and hearsay. I don't know what was actually said, neither do you. Stick to issues we can work out on our own, with simple factual backing.

> I could probably list more things that anyone could easily research for themselves,
> but I'm sure this is enough. I felt it would be easier for someone to explain these
> away if I separated them. Go for it. Defend the integrity of this wonderful and
> trustworthy government.