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

>
> 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.

Simple. When a failure happens it is not going to blow out all supports at the same time. Remember the outside of the building is going to be cooler than the inside. Different parts of the dozen or so floors that were sawed in half are going to fail at different rates.

>
> 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?

Oh and they didnt put it all back together? Which they did. The shipped all the debris to a New Jersy port authority area (the guys who own the land and the buildings). They then sold the scrap off. 99% of the scrap is just that, scrap.

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

Put options are not any indicator of anything. You usually see that sort of action before a major stockholder meeting or a few weeks before a financial release. The stock market is a big gambling stock machine. You can get put options on leverage for fairly cheap. And what you and I would consider a 'high amount' is pocket change to these guys... long and short options can get you into trouble quick. But you are usually very little out of pocket to buy them. You can even sell the same options (before they expire) if they change in price and pocket the difference.

>
> 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?

Uh the buildings had been attacked before. Having that sort of insurance is not unreasonable. A CEO is usually moving around. Most of them have their own jets as it is cheaper and they get to where they are going at their time frames. Many even sit on multiple boards which are located in different places in the world... Larry Silverstein if he is anything like your usual landlord. They will be all over the place buying and selling buildings or glad handing some big customer...

>
> 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.

Asbestos is a nasty cleanup job. For a small house think 1-2 weeks. Now try 7 large buildings worth. Oh and whoever is on those floors needs to stop what they are doing and go somewhere else. Remember the towers was high rent so you didnt just kick people out... Many times it is BETTER to leave it in place. There are millions of buildings out there with asbestos in them. We sprayed that crap around up until the mid 80s. Its good at what its designed for (a fire retardant). It has very little structural integrity and comes off with a simple brush of your hand (unless held in place with something else).

>
> 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?

Yes they were that weak. The twin towers were actually an interesting design. The exterior skin held up a good portion of the weight of the floors. Up until those were built no one had dared try it. They thought it too unsafe. It is all about distribution of load. Sort of like when you see those crazy guys running themselves over with cars. Most of the 3/4ths of weight of the car is on the other 3 tires. Intact would be fairly hard for concrete falling several hundred feet into other rubble. There were also large portions that were still there. But nothing bigger than a medium sized wall. Concrete is very brittle. If I made a 2x4x10 of concrete and took a sledge hammer to it I could make quick work of it. Same thing as wood would not be as easy to smash. Concrete has awesome compression strength. It does however have *very* poor lateral strength (which wood does).

>
> 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).

The original designs had that in there. Then they built them. Design and as built are many times not the same thing. Also a 767 which is nearly double the weight of a 707 is well outside of design spec... They both have about the same fuel capacity.

>
>

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?

So a plane weighing at least 170,000 pounds just hit the building AND blew up. There was no air pressure shockwave from that? Air would follow the path of least resistance. The stair wells elevator shafts and holes created by the impact. Also yes buildings are dirty. They were nearly 30 years old at that point and just had all the asbestos blown off in an explosion...

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

They do not keep military fighter jets in the air at all times. Those things drink gas by the gallon. They are not cheap to run. They also do not keep everything manned 100% of the time. We were not at war at the time. We were at the least defcon. Which means everyone is 'ready' but it takes a couple of hours to spin up. Which they did. Within 2 hours everything was grounded and would have been shot from the sky.

>
> 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?

A good number of experts huh? Not the ones I have seen. In any demolition you know what they do? They board up all the buildings around them. You know why? Debris is unpredictable. It goes all over the place.

>
> 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?

On the second one he did. The first one at the time everyone thought it was an accident. Was he supposed to upset a room full of children because something happened in new york? If it had been just an accident that would have been all over the news 'president bush upsets 4 year olds'. No, he stayed calm and finished his meet and greet.

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

They have people in our gov thinking up all sorts of crazy things. No one takes them that seriously. They just plan out what should happen if it does...

>
> 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?

It was (what was left of it)
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

>
> 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.

He didnt land it. He clipped the wing and hit at about the 2nd floor. He had been practicing for MONTHS beforehand to do this...

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

He screwed up and now will not admit it. It is a classic mental thing people are taught in business school. *NEVER* admit you are wrong, 'others are wrong you are not'. I have worked with people who do that. It is irritating as hell. But you will never get him to say otherwise.

>
>
> 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.

Your theory is our gov did it. That theory takes quite a number of mental gymnastics to make it work right.

My theory is a bunch of pissed off muslims wanted it, practiced to do it, then did it. Remember they hate us just because of where we are from. It is pure bigotry at its finest.