# 9/11- explosive evidence



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

No, I am not a conspiratist dude. BUT, I urge all of you to watch this video. It is VERY compelling! Something does not make sense!!! It's and hour and a half...can be dry at times and some commercials but skip those. Too me, it's quite an eye opener. It should make you wonder or at least question the official report. Please watch before responding.

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138


----------



## Agitation Free (Jul 11, 2010)

Everyone should watch this. To many questions unanswered.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Sasquatch did it from the third floor of the suppository building.


----------



## LilSiman/Medina (Nov 30, 2010)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Sasquatch did it from the third floor of the suppository building.


Well he strapped the bombs to a unicorn and it ran up the stairs!


----------



## UFM82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Do us a favor ok?


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

UFM82 said:


> Do us a favor ok?


Or, the more prudent thing you could do is not read any of his threads if you have preconceived notions about what might be in them in the first place. That's much easier.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

UFM82 said:


> Do us a favor ok?


Not a chance. If you don't agree fine. Just don't read to begin with or maybe put me on ignore (if there is such a feature on here)


----------



## ranger373v (Oct 26, 2012)

i dont got time to watch it right now on mobile...but i know what brought the buildings down...


----------



## mischif (Jul 14, 2006)

Okay this is one thread I will not get involved in! hahah


----------



## legendaryyaj (Nov 1, 2005)

14:54 Akron, OH was mentioned! Woohoo!


----------



## leftfordead88 (Oct 22, 2007)

ranger373v said:


> i dont got time to watch it right now on mobile...but i know what brought the buildings down...


+1


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## K gonefishin (May 4, 2004)

UFM82 said:


> Do us a favor ok?



Mike is a great Ogf member, not everyone agrees with what everyone says or does in real life or online deal with it. You don't like....don't read!


----------



## Shortdrift (Apr 5, 2004)

K gonefishin said:


> Mike is a great Ogf member, not everyone agrees with what everyone says or does in real life or online deal with it. You don't like....don't read!


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll second that.


----------



## mischif (Jul 14, 2006)

Shortdrift said:


> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I'll second that.


I want to third that!


----------



## Doboy (Oct 13, 2008)

ranger373v said:


> i dont got time to watch it right now on mobile...but i know what brought the buildings down...


Still Waiting,,,,,,


----------



## fishingdude (Nov 24, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> Or, the more prudent thing you could do is not read any of his threads if you have preconceived notions about what might be in them in the first place. That's much easier.


Exactly....time for the sheep to wakey wakey!


----------



## WeekendWarrior (Jan 20, 2008)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> Sasquatch did it from the third floor of the suppository building.



I think its called a "Book Depository" 

Suppositories - sup·pos·i·to·ries
A small plug of medication designed to melt at body temperature within a body cavity other than the mouth, especially the rectum


----------



## EnonEye (Apr 13, 2011)

I think we were all hipnotized by the feds and both buildings are still standing


----------



## ranger373v (Oct 26, 2012)

theres bigger problems to worry about! history channel just said were almost out of oil!


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Wow. I could never make sense of the collapse's, and I guess, a collective of high rise and structural architects and engineers, as well as metalurgical scientists, with over 25,000 years of combined experience don't either. Now, I don't feel so dumb. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth?


----------



## UFM82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Truth is in the eye of the beholder anymore. I for one do not rely on any one to make my decisions for me. I take the information I have and make my determination. Is it always correct? Of course not. There is only one perfect being that I am aware of. 
That all being said, I watched what happened that day. I heard the stories, the accounts of what people saw/heard/smelled/felt that day. I saw the continued replay of the impacts. I spoke to a friend two days later who was in the tower that day and had left only moments prior to the impact. He was less than a block away. And the farthest thing from my mind was that the government was somehow responsible (other than their complete incompetence in preventing this from happening). 
I also watched the video in question. I am not an architect, an engineer, demolition expert or any other type of trained expert. I am a realist. I live in the real world where things happen that we cannot explain no matter how smart we may be. I live in a world where I find it impossible to believe that our government, who cannot run ANY programs effectively or properly, can somehow manifest such an occurence as this without word leaking out. I find it impossible to believe that a demolition plan was put into place in order to bring down a building for no apparent reason on the possibility that two large aircraft could be flown into two of the largest buildings on Earth within a very short time. I find it impossible to believe that a team of demolition experts were able to enter any of the buildings bringing with them the materials required to bring down a building without any suspicions being raised. 
I do however believe that intense heat, extreme stress and structural deficiencies contributed to the collapse of the buildings. I've watched steel melt. I've seen dust explode. I've seen the effects of air rushing up through a column in a fire. I also can believe that the seismic shock caused by the collapse of the towers could have contributed to the damage to the foundation of the third building. I can believe that an otherwise sound building, having had it's foundation compromised, would collapse exactly as a controlled demolition team would do it. Isn't that what they do? Remove the critical support systems that hold the building up, allowing the weight of the building to collapse it? Why should that look any different? It's gravity doing the work- man is just accelerating that effect. 
Despite my distrust of the Federal Government in many areas, I simply cannot accept the idea that they allowed this. I see no motive, no reward, no actionable victory and the repercussions from being caught would be catastrophic. I just do not see it. One only needs to look at the scandals that arise all the time on relatively minor gov't activities to understand my point. Secrets are very hard, if not impossibly hard, to keep at that level. 
Perhaps I live in a dream world instead of reality to some extent. Perhaps, but reality has a way of making itself known when you least expect it. 

UFM82


----------



## legendaryyaj (Nov 1, 2005)

^

Would you believe that in order to get the trust of Americans, inflicting self wound would create and uproar strong enough to blind it's own people and go to war? The famous saying is, "You have to sacrifice a few to save millions", but I think it's you have to sacrifice a few to MAKE millions.

I am one for being a realists as well but I do think that there is information being withheld so I really don't know what to believe but it's enough to know that something is fishy.

Have you heard of Operation Northwoods? JFK? Weird eh? The list goes on and on but the government is suppressing it all. It's all about money. I don't know everything 100% but it's just what I've ran across from keeping my eyes, ears, and mind open.


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

I was never a conspiracy person until I saw the different videos of the 3rd building coming down.Burning buildings normally do not fall like that.It looked definately like a controlled demolition.
THIS is the video that raised my eyebrows.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

UFM82 said:


> Truth is in the eye of the beholder anymore. I for one do not rely on any one to make my decisions for me. I take the information I have and make my determination. Is it always correct? Of course not. There is only one perfect being that I am aware of.
> That all being said, I watched what happened that day. I heard the stories, the accounts of what people saw/heard/smelled/felt that day. I saw the continued replay of the impacts. I spoke to a friend two days later who was in the tower that day and had left only moments prior to the impact. He was less than a block away. And the farthest thing from my mind was that the government was somehow responsible (other than their complete incompetence in preventing this from happening).
> I also watched the video in question. I am not an architect, an engineer, demolition expert or any other type of trained expert. I am a realist. I live in the real world where things happen that we cannot explain no matter how smart we may be. I live in a world where I find it impossible to believe that our government, who cannot run ANY programs effectively or properly, can somehow manifest such an occurence as this without word leaking out. I find it impossible to believe that a demolition plan was put into place in order to bring down a building for no apparent reason on the possibility that two large aircraft could be flown into two of the largest buildings on Earth within a very short time. I find it impossible to believe that a team of demolition experts were able to enter any of the buildings bringing with them the materials required to bring down a building without any suspicions being raised.
> I do however believe that intense heat, extreme stress and structural deficiencies contributed to the collapse of the buildings. I've watched steel melt. I've seen dust explode. I've seen the effects of air rushing up through a column in a fire. I also can believe that the seismic shock caused by the collapse of the towers could have contributed to the damage to the foundation of the third building. I can believe that an otherwise sound building, having had it's foundation compromised, would collapse exactly as a controlled demolition team would do it. Isn't that what they do? Remove the critical support systems that hold the building up, allowing the weight of the building to collapse it? Why should that look any different? It's gravity doing the work- man is just accelerating that effect.
> ...


Everyone should do themselves a favor by reading and taking to heart UFM82's comment. As mentioned in the Bigfoot thread, some people must believe in conspiracy theories to make themselves feel wise, important or otherwise "in the know". I think it stems from a general dissatisfaction and/or feeling of insignificance in the world they live in.

Anyways, I find documentaries like the one featured in this thread, and this thread for that matter, particularly offensive and disrespectful to those who have perished, or fought in wars against terrorism.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

UFM82, conspiracy theory time. What makes you think people believe it was the government, and not a secret organization within? You don't think this stuff exists? Educate yourself about Progressives. They are in plain sight, but, people still don't believe they have their agenda, even though they are doing it. We nearly don't have seperate political parties anymore, as the Progressives have/are corrupting both. How many years have some secret societies existed?

Do you think it not possible some of our fearless leaders may not have our best interests at heart? 

I find it offensive, in the "free" United States of America, some citizens find distrust of "authority" to be anything less than wise, and admonished as just some crazy wearing a foil hat. Without questioning "authority", we'd still be British subjects. I wonder, back in the day, if people accused Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson of being on the lunatic fringe? Do you trust and believe all and everything your neighbors say and do? Probably not, but, an elected official is nothing but your neighbor. Oh, and ole Ben and Tom, and a whole host of others, they were members of one of those "secret" societies. Think on that.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

WeekendWarrior said:


> I think its called a "Book Depository"
> 
> Suppositories - sup·pos·i·to·ries
> A small plug of medication designed to melt at body temperature within a body cavity other than the mouth, especially the rectum


I'll stand by my original statement. Thank you though!


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

I Fish said:


> UFM82, conspiracy theory time. What makes you think people believe it was the government, and not a secret organization within? You don't think this stuff exists? Educate yourself about Progressives. They are in plain sight, but, people still don't believe they have their agenda, even though they are doing it. We nearly don't have seperate political parties anymore, as the Progressives have/are corrupting both. How any years have some secret societies existed?
> 
> Do you think it not possible some of our fearless leaders may not have our best interests at heart?
> 
> I find it offensive, in the "free" United States of America, some citizens find distrust of "authority" to be anything less than wise, and admonished as just some crazy wearing a foil hat. Without questioning "authority", we'd still be British subjects. I wonder, back in the day, if people accused Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson of being on the lunatic fringe? Do you trust and believe all and everything your neighbors say and do? Probably not, but, an elected official is nothing but your neighbor. Oh, and ole Ben and Tom, and a whole host of others, they were members of one of those "secret" societies. Think on that.


I think distrust can be a good thing as long as you're not an idiot about it. In this situation, people are seeing what they want to see in order to justify their dream world.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I don't think people are being idiots here. Watch the video, the physics, which last I checked, since leaving the realm of alchemy, was a mathematical science, don't add up. Here is something else. Think of it as another log on the steel and concrete melting fire: 





I guess I'm lucky, in that my reality is a dream world for some, as is yours, if you truly understand hardship and the harsh realities. My eyes are wide open, and I truly wish some of the things I've seen/am seeing were just a bad dream, you will too, but alas, they are real.


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

Mushijobah said:


> Everyone should do themselves a favor by reading and taking to heart UFM82's comment. As mentioned in the Bigfoot thread, some people must believe in conspiracy theories to make themselves feel wise, important or otherwise "in the know". I think it stems from a general dissatisfaction and/or feeling of insignificance in the world they live in.
> 
> Anyways, I find documentaries like the one featured in this thread, and this thread for that matter, particularly offensive and disrespectful to those who have perished, or fought in wars against terrorism.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


 My moms a flight attendant who was in the air that morning and my dad is a firefighter. To think that some conspiracy was built up and people just like my parents were set up like disposable pawns makes me sick! I agree with every word you said 100%

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

I suggest you all watch some controlled demolitions on YouTube. While the buildings may have looked similar falling, there are unmistakable events which have to happen on a demolition that simply aren't there on video and audio documentation that we have. I don't care about your "eyewitness reports" you can drudge up from the internets, I have my own eyes and ears and have devoured every bit of video and audio I've come across since waking from a sound sleep that fateful Tuesday which I had off work. I usually fall asleep to the tv some something about that newscast woke me up in time to see the second impact live.

GWB didn't need another reason to invade Iraq, he had a couple of perfectly good ones already.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

How ironic that Had Been Ladden`s own personal plan was for the hijackers to fly to various parts of the country, buy or steal bi plane crop dusters, fill their spraying tanks with nothing more lethal than ordinary chlorine bleach, take off and after the pilot dons a gas mask fly them inside various sports stadiums, and emptying the tanks upon the crowds. Being a non lethal but moderate choking and blinding irritant agent, he was hoping the nimble manouverable bi planes should have been easily capable of completing several passes over the stands, hoping for a massive panic and stampede with several thousand potential deaths and who knows how many injuries in multiple areas of the country. If the 10(?) suspected attacks against 10 different sporting events had each produced just 500 deaths apiece that`s 5000+. Most "professional guesstimates" would have pushed the individual site fatalities MUCH higher...but "luckily' Had Been Ladden`s planners convinced him that the crop duster attacks weren`t "spectacular' enough...If anyone remembers, for almost 1 month after 9/11 ALL crop dusters were ORDERED "grounded' with ignition parts REMOVED. There was a VERY GOOD reason WHY...


----------



## jeffmo (Apr 7, 2004)

I personally don't believe that our Gov't had anything to do w/ 9-11.But remember this,there was a bomb that was detonated in 1 of the twin towers years ago.Their intent was to take it down.IF they could place explosives in a building then why would it not be believeable that they couldn't set up a controlled detonation in the 3rd building.
I believe that the fires that resulted from the jets hitting the towers are what caused their collapse but the 3rd building definately looked like a controlled detonation.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

UFM82 said:


> Truth is in the eye of the beholder anymore. I for one do not rely on any one to make my decisions for me. I take the information I have and make my determination. Is it always correct? Of course not. There is only one perfect being that I am aware of.
> That all being said, I watched what happened that day. I heard the stories, the accounts of what people saw/heard/smelled/felt that day. I saw the continued replay of the impacts. I spoke to a friend two days later who was in the tower that day and had left only moments prior to the impact. He was less than a block away. And the farthest thing from my mind was that the government was somehow responsible (other than their complete incompetence in preventing this from happening).
> I also watched the video in question. I am not an architect, an engineer, demolition expert or any other type of trained expert. I am a realist. I live in the real world where things happen that we cannot explain no matter how smart we may be. I live in a world where I find it impossible to believe that our government, who cannot run ANY programs effectively or properly, can somehow manifest such an occurence as this without word leaking out. I find it impossible to believe that a demolition plan was put into place in order to bring down a building for no apparent reason on the possibility that two large aircraft could be flown into two of the largest buildings on Earth within a very short time. I find it impossible to believe that a team of demolition experts were able to enter any of the buildings bringing with them the materials required to bring down a building without any suspicions being raised.
> I do however believe that intense heat, extreme stress and structural deficiencies contributed to the collapse of the buildings. I've watched steel melt. I've seen dust explode. I've seen the effects of air rushing up through a column in a fire. I also can believe that the seismic shock caused by the collapse of the towers could have contributed to the damage to the foundation of the third building. I can believe that an otherwise sound building, having had it's foundation compromised, would collapse exactly as a controlled demolition team would do it. Isn't that what they do? Remove the critical support systems that hold the building up, allowing the weight of the building to collapse it? Why should that look any different? It's gravity doing the work- man is just accelerating that effect.
> ...


Good Job +1


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

I would not presume to know WHO would do such a thing and I cannot help but to seriously doubt that our own government would do it, but the facts presented by so many experts, which seem to point to controlled demolition, along with video and first hand testimony from cops and fireman on the scene, are hard to dismiss for any thinking person.

I watched the videos presented by countless sources on 9/11 and thereafter and I wondered even then how the destruction could be so perfectly symmetrical. 

Noticing the similarities between what happened that day and professional controlled demolition isn't offensive, it is a sign of intelligence and good old fashioned common sense.

As someone else righteously noted, explosives WERE placed in the twin towers in the past (prior to the events of 9/11). Then on 9/11 we watch as not one, but three buildings fall with near perfect likeness to that of a controlled demolition replete with dozens of recordings of and eyewitness testimony to simultaneous explosions. The documentation is redundant, clear, provided by multiple reliable news sources, and hardly in the realm of questionable.

The question is how can you NOT wonder about what really took place that day.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Studied civil engineering for 1 1/2 yrs and AM NOT an "expert". However, in simplest terms, the Towers themselves were destroyed by #1: the actual impacts of the planes hitting at 400+ mph and penetrating to the inner supporting "core' areas which provided approx. 60% of the buildings` strenght, further damade was done to at least 1 entire outer supporting framework each. #2: The fuel from the almost FULLY loaded transcontinental flights` fuel tanks partially vaporized upon rupturing and ignited; this occured as some if not a large amount of heat resistant foam was tore or scraped off by the wreckage bouncing thru the various floors. #3: Once the fires became established and fighting them became impossible the buildings were doomed; as the floor supporting steel softened and lost it`s load carrying ability, a part of a floor collapsed setting in motion a "cascading effect" that once started ultimately destroyed both buildings. The ACTUAL wonder is that as badly damaged as BOTH buildings were within seconds of the impacts that they stayed standing as LONG AS THEY DID. Most "experts" still feel that if the fires could have been fought fairly quickly, the damaged buildings likely would have withstood the event. As far as WTC Building 3(?), the impact of literally hundreds of thousands of TONS of debris landing very close after falling many dozens of floors high can cause effects similar to a near miss on a steel hulled ship by a 2,000 pd bomb. Even though it wasn`t a DIRECT hit, that hunk of HE detonating 50-100` away can do all but unbelievable damage due to underwater shock waves, concussion and shrapnel, and MAY have a great enough effect to cripple or even SINK that ship...same thing with the building in question. Similar to having a 6.5 earthquake...EXPECT some significant damages...


----------



## Bucket Mouth (Aug 13, 2007)

I would suggest that people who believe the "official" story should review articles/video of BUILDING 7. I don't think I've seen that come up in the conversation here. It collapsed 8 hours after towers collapsed, and nothing hit it.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Bucket Mouth said:


> I would suggest that people who believe the "official" story should review articles/video of BUILDING 7. I don't think I've seen that come up in the conversation here. It collapsed 8 hours after towers collapsed, and nothing hit it.


Sorry but bullcrap man. Nothing hit it but there was a 10 story gash which was caused by debris which also started large fires which lead to the collapse of critical support due to the fire suppresion system in the building not able to handle the intense heat created but such a complete burning fire. I'd imagine many of those offices being stuffed with not only highly flammable paper but other office supplies which can also be dangerously flammable. Unprecidented recipe for disaster is what we witnessed.

wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center











The only plausible theory I see in a coordinated detonation would be Soloman Brothers(or pick your ultra Corp entwined in some bizarre internal scandal) having their building rigged JUST IN CASE something catastrophic like this happened within the city and they could just hit the button and boom. Nothing else makes sense to me as far as a building falling in the middle of New York City. And that would be quite a stretch now wouldn't it? Heh.
"Hey, we don't want to go to jail so lets hire some Saudis to fly jets into buildings killing everyone then blow up all the evidence."

Much easier ways to avoid embezzlement charges folks. Jilted lover rig them? Pssht lol. Obsessed religious fundamentalists hellbent on fulfilling prophecy and martyrdom for "attacking the head of the snake", DING DING DING! 



I really hate to even joke or be sarcastic about the situation for like a previous poster said, many people lost their lives that day. I think human greed is a terrible problem today, but I'm not going to fathom it capable of one of the most calculated(too much credit) and horrendous and crimes in recent history. These events speak to a much deeper issue this world has been dealing with I'm afraid.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

LOL As soon as I saw Richard Gage, I knew what this video would be.... and I was right. I watched dozens of these at the suggestion of people that think the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

First...... WTC 7 it collapsed like that because the center supports of the building was on trusses. There was an electrical substation under the building. That's why they used trusses. Fire weakened the trusses and the center collapsed. You can look up the plans for the building if you'd like. Some also say that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. Right, it wasn't. It was hit by falling pieces of one of the twin towers. WTC 7 was only 350' from the base of the tower. There were also tanks of diesel fuel scattered throughout each floor. They were fuel for generators in case of power outage. 

As far as the twin towers being built to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. They were designed to withstand the impact of one "flying low and slow, lost in the fog" That's a quote from the one of the men responsible for their design. At the time the towers were built the largest jet liner was a Boeing 707. The heaviest 707 is lighter than the lightest 767, which is what hit the towers. The model of plane that hit the towers weighed more than 300,000 lbs. The planes were estimated to be traveling between 493 mph and 547 mph. I can post the formula used to figure out the ballistics if you'd like. Suffice it to say the energy released on impact was staggering. 

Thermite residue. Do people realize that a form of thermite is used on sparklers? Or as a coating for welding rods? The buildings were stick welded........ using welding rods. If there WASN'T thermite residue I would be shocked. 

I really don't see any need to keep going on. As UFM82 said ..... you can go on believing the government or some kind of secret agency did this and has kept it a secret for all these years. I don't buy it. This whole video is bogus. Richard Gage has changed his presentations numerous times as people have pointed out discrepancies in his presentations. Discrepancies that an architect should know not to expound upon. 

Ya know what....... why bother..... people will believe what they want to believe.....


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Again, apologize for the overly simplified version and lower aircraft speed but all of Massillion Buckeye and Bassbme`s statements are correct. Consider WTC 7 a ship. Even WITHOUT being directly struck by debris weighing MANY tons falling from a considerable height the debris landing as "very near misses" on 2 sides with ENORMOUS force will send hundreds of shock waves into the surrounding ground. 1 or 2 might not be much of a concern, but literally thousands occuring THAT close TWICE in the space of 1 and 1/2 hrs could not help but to damage the buildings foundations AND supporting columns AND water and electrical service mains. Concrete columns subjected to that kind of low frequency vibrations ONCE can easily crack or even significantly "deform"; being subjected REPEATEDLY to it will NOT help the building structurally...even WITHOUT the fires. ADD in the fires and WTC 7 soon also collapsed. As far as a "massive cover up" as an alternative, the likelyhood of EVERYONE involved keeping "quiet' while or after this happened is just plain "ka-ka".


----------



## Wow (May 17, 2010)

I Fish said:


> I don't think people are being idiots here. Watch the video, the physics, which last I checked, since leaving the realm of alchemy, was a mathematical science, don't add up. Here is something else. Think of it as another log on the steel and concrete melting fire:
> 1 DAY BEFORE 911 WTC attack! DO u know what happened?WATCH! - YouTube
> 
> I guess I'm lucky, in that my reality is a dream world for some, as is yours, if you truly understand hardship and the harsh realities. My eyes are wide open, and I truly wish some of the things I've seen/am seeing were just a bad dream, you will too, but alas, they are real.


I find all of this conspiracy evidence very thin. Nothing absolutely irrefutable. 

BUT!

If anyone needs a plausible explaination for "why?", Just watch this clip again.
Since 911: "In the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten." NOT millions, NOT billions, We're talkin' Trillions!!! WASTED!!! And that's B4 911 even happened.

On pentagon spending: "We cannot track 2.3 trillion in transactions." (Donald Rumsfeld 9-10-01) Probably more!

I'm all for the strongest millitary on the planet, but who pocketed those trillions of taxpayer dollars, that never got spent on defense.

Any good investigator starts with motive.

And we wonder why we're facing a "fiscal cliff". The people who earned those trillions could use them now!

--Tim


----------



## loves2fishinohio (Apr 14, 2011)

jeffmo said:


> I was never a conspiracy person until I saw the different videos of the 3rd building coming down.Burning buildings normally do not fall like that.It looked definately like a controlled demolition.
> THIS is the video that raised my eyebrows.
> 
> NEW VIDEO SEPT 2011. WTC Building 7 Controlled Demolition (Visible Explosions) - YouTube


Explosions my butt, those were windows popping as the roof was clearly starting to fall. Outer ones popped first because the window headers were being pulled away from the top of the glass. Middle ones didn't pop because the glass being commercial grade laminated tempered glass will handle the compression of the inward force of the building falling down much longer than the outer windows being pulled from their frames.

In other words, the windows exploding in this video would be the first to go. And the building started to compress in the center as you can see from the start of the video before the first window popped.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

You do realize the WTC towers were the first, and only, high rise stuctures to ever collapse due to fire? Sure, you can say the first 2 were structurally damaged by the planes and jet fuel, but what about WTC 7? In all three cases, there was no real warning, they just fell straight down inside of themselves. How? Why not sideways? The Towers were designed to withstand a collapse of the floors from above or below, compartmentally designed. Each floor was designed to take over the supporting role of any floor support that failed. Supposedly, Flight 175 was carrying 9100 gallons of jet fuel, and Flight 11 was carrying 10,000 gallons, that's really not that much, about the same amount carried in a fuel delivery truck we all see at the gas station. Given the lower burning temperatures of jet fuel that is just freely burning with no oxygenator, and the much higher melting point of steel, and, these buildings were designed to withstand fire. I mean, there are just way to many unanswered questions. I guess, for me, the problem comes from the "official" explanation has too many holes in it, that, not only defy logic, they defy physics and accepted science. I find the odds that for the first time in history, a high rise building collapses due to fire, falling uncontrolled, and falling straight down not sideways, not once, but 3 times in the same day to be overwhelming. IMO, the greatest dis-service we can do to those who lost their lives, is to not find the real cause. If we don't, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes, jeoprodizing others in the future. IF, they failed due to fire, we need to find out why, and how do we prevent it.


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

I Fish said:


> You do realize the WTC towers were the first, and only, high rise stuctures to ever collapse due to fire? Sure, you can say the first 2 were structurally damaged by the planes and jet fuel, but what about WTC 7? In all three cases, there was no real warning, they just fell straight down inside of themselves. How? Why not sideways? The Towers were designed to withstand a collapse of the floors from above or below, compartmentally designed. Each floor was designed to take over the supporting role of any floor support that failed. Supposedly, Flight 175 was carrying 9100 gallons of jet fuel, and Flight 11 was carrying 10,000 gallons, that's really not that much, about the same amount carried in a fuel delivery truck we all see at the gas station. Given the lower burning temperatures of jet fuel that is just freely burning with no oxygenator, and the much higher melting point of steel, and, these buildings were designed to withstand fire. I mean, there are just way to many unanswered questions. I guess, for me, the problem comes from the "official" explanation has too many holes in it, that, not only defy logic, they defy physics and accepted science. I find the odds that for the first time in history, a high rise building collapses due to fire, falling uncontrolled, and falling straight down not sideways, not once, but 3 times in the same day to be overwhelming. IMO, the greatest dis-service we can do to those who lost their lives, is to not find the real cause. If we don't, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes, jeoprodizing others in the future. IF, they failed due to fire, we need to find out why, and how do we prevent it.


All you are accounting for is the fuel lol. What about the insane impact of these huge planes slamming into these buildings and exploding. Plus it all makes sense. The building that was hit lower fell first. Once the trusses melted and the floors started collapsing like pancakes no structure could stop that type of momentum. And why would they not fall straight down? Also the impact of the buildings showed up on seismic readings. to actually believe any of this conspiracy crap is foolish. The problem with the conspiracy babble is they only take into account facts that help there cause and discount actual facts and accounts

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm accounting for the fuel having a higher burning temperature. The report stated that the combustables had a burning temperature 200 degrees or so cooler than the fuel. Also, the official report stated that the collapse was due to irregular temperatures, as in it was hotter on one side, therefore, the hottest side should have begun collapsing before the cooler side, causing an inbalance. All of these things are irrelavant to building 7. Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that, with all of the building codes, a fire alone could cause the collapse, especially since it's NEVER happened, anywhere in the world, before or since, but, in this instance, it happened 3 times. I don't want to believe the conspiracy theories, but, when they make more sense than the official report, I smell something foul.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

Even if the fire from the planes caused structural failure, and number of credentialed engineers in the video disputed that theory, I still don't buy that all three buildings would drop in a manner precisely mimicking that of a planned demolition.

Surely only one portion of just one of the three buildings would have failed causing one side of the building to sag and thereby cause an asymmetrical failure. But no, they all three dropped perfectly straight down? All three? 

Again, I'm not buying the our government was the cause, but I don't buy three perfect vertical drops cause by perfectly symmetrical structural failure. 

Falling debris in unison with sporadic fires caused that in building seven?

The only thing more far-fetched than the idea that our government did it, is the idea that falling debris and sporadic fire created a perfectly symmetrical collapse. At least that how I see it. The physics required of three nearly identical failures is just too bizarre to not question.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Actually, standard fuel tankers such as you commonly see at a service center are by law 5,000 gallons capacity BUT for safety reasons inside almost every state only allowed to carry 3,000 gallons inside cities and built up areas, they also have to have double hulls. And few "experts' think that very much of the structural steel supporting ANY of the WTC buildings MELTED; rather that the prolonged exposure to the intense infernoes simply heated and SOFTENED it, basically removing it`s tempered built in strenght while it was still loaded with the weight of the upper floors. Once a significant number actually failed, the "cascade effect" occured. Take a dam as an example; a leak in it`s retaining wall erodes dirt or fill, allowing more water to flow through. The more water flows through, the more fill is eroded, further enlargening the hole. Unchecked, the process continues untill the water pressure behind the weakened retaining wall bursts bodily through in a sudden surge, collapsing the dam. the effect was the same but in a vertical form, rather than horizontal one. And as far as the doubts about "shock effect" from falling debris, consider the Wallis WW 2 22,000lb "Tall Boy " bomb. Dropped from 25,000` this monster created a literal miniture "earthquake" type shock wave in the ground able to wreck stout steel and concrete railroad bridges WITHOUT even completely toppling them. The shock wave hitting their bridge embutments 500` away simply SO weakened them the remaining badly damaged bridges had to be leveled and rebuilt. Those were "only" 22,000 lbs; have no idea how much the South Tower wreckage weighed, but it was ALOT more than 11 tons AND part of it actually HIT WTC 7 and/ or cratered the area right next to the building. Even without the explosive force the WW2 bombs had, the shock waves produced were extremely POWERFUL...the addition of the collapsing North Tower 55 (?) minutes later did NOT help things...to put it into perspective, the collapse of the South Tower registered a 2.7 on the Richter scale in Boston Mass, close to 200 miles away.


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

I Fish said:


> I'm accounting for the fuel having a higher burning temperature. The report stated that the combustables had a burning temperature 200 degrees or so cooler than the fuel. Also, the official report stated that the collapse was due to irregular temperatures, as in it was hotter on one side, therefore, the hottest side should have begun collapsing before the cooler side, causing an inbalance. All of these things are irrelavant to building 7. Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that, with all of the building codes, a fire alone could cause the collapse, especially since it's NEVER happened, anywhere in the world, before or since, but, in this instance, it happened 3 times. I don't want to believe the conspiracy theories, but, when they make more sense than the official report, I smell something foul.


A fire alone? Lol....once again just taking into account things that only support YOUR wackjob theories. I'm done with this. I know you guys feel special thinking that some secret agency or some crazy demolition setup happened but its highly unlikely.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Aye aye aye. Well 50% of Ogf members polled also believe in Bigfoot so I'm not surprised here.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

Lowell, your first paragraph of your last post seems to indicate that you think the experts (which you seemingly hope to discredit by repeatedly putting the word in quotation marks) were wrong about the melting steel. You are aware that there is video and numerous eyewitness testimony to its existence at the scene, are you not? It's been several days since I watched the video but as I recall questions were raise about the ability of the burning fuel to melt the steel...never mind that much later melting steel was still found flowing in the wreckage during rescue.

Now that is according to eyewitnesses, credentialed engineers and other true experts on the matter, some of whom were there on the scene. You seem to be knowledgable about certain matters but you also seem to be somewhat selective as to which facts you address. Is there a logical explanation for the large amounts of melted steel? If the jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt it in large quantities, what melted it? Also why would the officials from STIL deny the obvious existence of and numerous reports of the melted steel?

Also how do you explain the explosions that were reported by so many people? The reports were not of hearing windows shatter or the sound of glass breaking; numerous credible officials at the scene, some of whom were within a matter of yards from the buildings, reported hearing explosions...before the buildings fell. Could the explosions have been caused by the fuel you say is stored in all of the buildings? If so, why would so many credentialed engineers not be aware of that? Also what type of fuel is it that would melt so much steel, causing temperatures to be reached that created "rivers" of melting steel which were still flowing hours later? Also the video alluded to finding partially vaporized steel. Is that not in the realm of explosives?

Your rudimentary explanation of dam failure might be appropriate except for the idea that one must accept the concept that the dam wall failed uniformly and simultaneously across its entire foundation. In this case, three dams failed perfectly symmetrically in sequence despite the fact that in the case of building seven, we must also accept the idea that falling debris uniformly damaged the entire foundation as opposed to not one, but two randomly aimed plane crashes which, along with the ensuing fires, uniformly destroying the first two buildings in such a perfectly geometrically design so as to cause the pancake effect of all three? 

Also you noted that the falling debris created a crater on one side of building seven, but again it somehow uniformly damaged the entire structure and thereby caused a uniform collapse? Why would it not be logical that such an impact on one side caused more damage to one side and a collapse starting on that side...in essence causing a failure on one side then the affecting the remainder of the structure? In your obviously logical approach, with the knowledge you clearly exhibit, you seem to ignore that key question? 

Please don't get confused; I address you directly (among all others who've chimed in on this interesting topic) because you seem to write with authority on the subject and I ask with due respect. However, I have lived long enough to know that although such amazing events have been know to take place, they most certainly are rare, to say the least.


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

I Fish said:


> Wow. I could never make sense of the collapse's, and I guess, a collective of high rise and structural architects and engineers, as well as metalurgical scientists, with over 25,000 years of combined experience don't either. Now, I don't feel so dumb. I wonder if we'll ever know the truth?


If a 20 year old college drop out living in his mom's basement can't tell me what happened, nobody can. Not everything is a conspiracy, kids.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

TheCream said:


> If a 20 year old college drop out living in his mom's basement can't tell me what happened, nobody can. Not everything is a conspiracy, kids.


I guess I'm not smart enough to know what that is supposed to mean???

Quote Lowell H Turner - "_Actually, standard fuel tankers such as you commonly see at a service center are by law 5,000 gallons capacity BUT for safety reasons inside almost every state only allowed to carry 3,000 gallons inside cities and built up areas, they also have to have double hulls."
_
Actually the fuel tankers I was refering to are 9000 gallons. One such as this, the most common on the road: http://www.truckpaper.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=3930107


----------



## debard (Nov 9, 2011)

I've got a raging clue.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

The NIST reports are where I'd hedge my bets. It's all laid out in pretty plain English and its clear that a few of our conspiracy theorists here ether haven't cared to read it or would still just rather believe something else entirely. To each his own. I don't see these talks as being very productive. You aren't going to change any hearts and minds here.


----------



## Gone Fission (Mar 13, 2005)

You guys do realize that "they" are monitoring this thread. If they can orchestrate such a huge demolition and successfully cover it up I am sure a hit squad is on it's way to your house right now to silence you...be careful and remember to wear your tinfoil hats!


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Gone Fission said:


> You guys do realize that "they" are monitoring this thread. If they can orchestrate such a huge demolition and successfully cover it up I am sure a hit squad is on it's way to your house right now to silence you...be careful and remember to wear your tinfoil hats!


Good point. Demolish half of downtown New York without anyone uttering a single peep. Maybe they worked alone? They are clearly more advanced than you or I. Talk about hard to believe! I dont see the point of what ifs in this case really. We've brought who claimed responsibility and who we thought was responsible to justice. I only hope for some sense of closure(or whatever you may be seeking)for those that may have lost friends and family members on those fateful day many of us will never forget.


----------



## dock dabber (Mar 20, 2005)

Do you really think our Government would ever tell us the truth about anything ?


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

dock dabber said:


> Do you really think our Government would ever tell us the truth about anything ?


Apparently, a lot of people do.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

dock dabber said:


> Do you really think our Government would ever tell us the truth about anything ?


Absolutely. To think they lie about absolutely everything is absolutely preposterous. Absolutely.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

I Fish said:


> Apparently, a lot of people do.


Of course they do. Lets not be ridiculous now.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

dock dabber said:


> Do you really think our Government would ever tell us the truth about anything ?


Do you really think that a team of demolitionists and everyone else that would have been involved would keep completely silent for all this time? Don't people who do this sort of thing usually want recognition? You really think all those people would stay absolutely silent for all these years? That's partially why I'll never believe anyone else was responsible. All it would take is one person to squeal and start the dominoes falling. The fact that hasn't happened more than 10 years later? Lets talk about that please.


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

dock dabber said:


> Do you really think our Government would ever tell us the truth about anything ?


Do you really think the government could destroy the twin towers and kill hundreds if not thousands of people and not have anyone speak to the media anonymously about it?


----------



## Burks (Jun 22, 2011)

TheCream said:


> Do you really think the government could destroy the twin towers and kill hundreds if not thousands of people and not have anyone speak to the media anonymously about it?


Those that knew, were in the buildings when they collapsed. Government sanctioned execution for "knowing too much".




Anyone seen my foil hat? I think Alf is sending me subliminal thoughts again.


----------



## cjpolecat (Apr 19, 2008)

Remember TWA Flt. 800 ? This is a very large cover up.


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

Ohhh, I figured it out! They used these things to erase everyone's memories of what really happened.


----------



## Net (Apr 10, 2004)

The "government" lost a lot of lives on 9/11 too. One of them was Martha Reszke, the wife of my best friend. She was killed (vaporized) in the Pentagon attack. In the end we are all still AMERICANS. Yes, even our government! I'm pretty certain of one thing. This lousy economy has created way too much idle time for my fellow AMERICANS to sit around pondering such foolishness.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Net said:


> The "government" lost a lot of lives on 9/11 too. One of them was Martha Reszke, the wife of my best friend. She was killed (vaporized) in the Pentagon attack. In the end we are all still AMERICANS. Yes, even our government! I'm pretty certain of one thing. This lousy economy has created way too much idle time for my fellow AMERICANS to sit around pondering such foolishness.


I wouldn't blame the economy for someones lack of will to work. I'd be SUPER busy right now if I were laid off. There are plenty of jobs for people who want to work. Not saying they'd all be ideal. Now we're way off topic 

I'll drink to the rest of your post though Net  Sorry to hear about your friends wife.


----------



## PapawSmith (Feb 13, 2007)

Net said:


> The "government" lost a lot of lives on 9/11 too. One of them was Martha Reszke, the wife of my best friend. She was killed (vaporized) in the Pentagon attack. In the end we are all still AMERICANS. Yes, even our government! I'm pretty certain of one thing. This lousy economy has created way too much idle time for my fellow AMERICANS to sit around pondering such foolishness.


+1. I'm embarrassed for some of you and your thoughts on this issue.


----------



## jlami (Jan 28, 2011)

PapawSmith said:


> +1. I'm embarrassed for some of you and your thoughts on this issue.


Strongly agree!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

It took almost 65 years for this to come to light. I'd say they did a fair job of covering it up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html?_r=0

I guess this is OK, as they weren't Americans? Besides being all Americans, we are ALL humans, and looking at it from that perspective, that is all we are to some. There is real evil out there, just ask those Guatemalans. Believe me, throughout the years, our Government, and factions within, have done plenty we'll never know about. We only find out about the mistakes. If plans are carried out flawlessly, we never know. Do you think the only illegal activities engaged in are the ones that become scandals? My point is, if they didn't ever get away with anything, why would they ever try again? Fast and Furious comes to mind. Had those agents not came forward, 10 years from now, it would be one of those "crazy conspiracy theories". 

What about the Pentagon's black ops? How many of us know what's going on there? Very few, and by design, within the structure of some organizations, the participants don't fully know what's going on. Who's to say a scandal of unheard of proportions was about to break? Maybe some of the missing money went to fund a project that went haywire, but will not have serious consequences for another 30 years? There are things being tested that the "testers" don't fully understand. You don't have to worry about getting away with telling lies, if you don't know the truth. Not every conspiracy is a theory. I wonder if the people of Guatamala, after hearing the stories of forced infection, called those it happened to crazy conspiracy theory nuts?


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

I can't remember the name of the person that posted that conspiracy minded people rarely if ever do any actual research. They choose to believe the people that did the research for them. For instance.... one poster keeps expounding on the fact that no high rise has ever fallen from fire alone, yet none of the 3 buildings only had fire as their cause of collapse. 

Once again this same poster mentions that no high rise building ever collapsed because of fire, yet to date..... there has NEVER been a top down controlled demolition of any high rise building. Yet the towers clearly collapsed at the points of impact. Some of these silly truth videos actually used to claim that there was no pile driver effect from the upper floors. Claiming that the floors above the impact zones were also demolished by explosives. Yet in every video it is clear that all of the upper floors were intact and disappeared into the dust cloud. 

One poster mentioned the building fell asymmetrically with no lean towards the more damaged side. In any video of the one tower falling you can clearly see the top floor start to lean before the collapse started. You can also see the upper floors leaning as they fell, until they were obscured by the dust cloud. Concerning WTC 7 .... I have yet to see a video of the buildings collapse from the side where it was damaged. If people would actually watch the videos of what appears to be an undamaged WTC 7 as it collapses you can see the center starting to sag. Watch the video closely and you can see the wall leaning back towards the center of the building. Towards the damaged side.

Why do the conspiracy people AND the "911 Truth Architects" always quote the temperature of molten steel and say the fires never reached that temperature. You don't have to turn steel to liquid to weaken it. Posters love to say that people dispute the experts. Why would an expert only quote the temperature of molten steel? 

A poster said the towers were designed to withstand the collapse of a floor on to another. 1 floor...... 2 floors....... 3 floors...... Not 20 to 30 floors collapsing on to the floors below. For those wondering .... 1 cubic foot of concrete (only concrete) weighs 143 lbs. The floors for the WTC towers were 4" thick. That means 1 cubic foot of concrete equates to 3 sq ft of concrete that is 4" thick. The towers were square ..... 208' x 208' for a total square footage of 43,264. Divide by 3 and you come up with 14,421 cubic feet of concrete per floor, for a weight of 2,062,250 lbs. Per floor. That doesn't account for the weight of the steel girders, columns, concrete reinforcement, furniture etc. Of course you have to subtract weight for stairways and elevator shafts..... but still...... you get the picture. 

Some people view these videos and listen to demolition experts and architects point to pictures of vertical posts cut on angles just as if there were cut using a shaped charge. Every picture of said post that I have seen show huge amounts of slag. Shaped charges cut much cleaner than were the posts and beams shown in the pictures. They point to the angle of the cut being the key.... what was around that post when it was cut as they teams were cutting up and hauling away the debris? Yet people believe these people because they are "experts" Experts at deception....... experts at telling half truths or stating how things should act...... in a laboratory. Not the real world. Book learning versus real world learning. A poster quoted "the physics" ....... what physics? A building that tall has never collapsed before....... what kind of data do they have to compare it to? None..... zip, zero, nadda..... 

Most of the conspiracy people I have discussed this event with tell me I lack critical thinking. That I'm not seeing the whole picture, when in fact it is them that is not seeing the whole picture. 

Anyhow........ have fun conspiracy people. Keep thinking that you are doing the families and the dead justice by "asking the questions that need to be asked". All your doing is bringing up memories that are better left alone, and you're using bogus theories to do it. 

Oh I almost forgot....... "the rivers of molten steel" post. Rivers of molten metal...... some could have been steel......some could have been who knows what. Got anyone that did analysis on the contents of these rivers of molten steel? Probably not ......


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

Bassbme said:


> I can't remember the name of the person that posted that conspiracy minded people rarely if ever do any actual research. They choose to believe the people that did the research for them. For instance.... one poster keeps expounding on the fact that no high rise has ever fallen from fire alone, yet none of the 3 buildings only had fire as their cause of collapse.
> 
> Once again this same poster mentions that no high rise building ever collapsed because of fire, yet to date..... there has NEVER been a top down controlled demolition of any high rise building. Yet the towers clearly collapsed at the points of impact. Some of these silly truth videos actually used to claim that there was no pile driver effect from the upper floors. Claiming that the floors above the impact zones were also demolished by explosives. Yet in every video it is clear that all of the upper floors were intact and disappeared into the dust cloud.
> 
> ...


Spot on man

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Bassbme said:


> I can't remember the name of the person that posted that conspiracy minded people rarely if ever do any actual research. They choose to believe the people that did the research for them. For instance.... one poster keeps expounding on the fact that no high rise has ever fallen from fire alone, yet none of the 3 buildings only had fire as their cause of collapse.
> 
> Once again this same poster mentions that no high rise building ever collapsed because of fire, yet to date..... there has NEVER been a top down controlled demolition of any high rise building. Yet the towers clearly collapsed at the points of impact. Some of these silly truth videos actually used to claim that there was no pile driver effect from the upper floors. Claiming that the floors above the impact zones were also demolished by explosives. Yet in every video it is clear that all of the upper floors were intact and disappeared into the dust cloud.
> 
> ...


Exactly.....


----------



## Mr. A (Apr 23, 2012)

Bassbme......Nuff said. Best common sense I have read by far for a long time! +1

A

My wife says I have a fishing habbit....


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Can`t remember the exact formula, but basically most "common" tempered case hardened steel WILL lose MORE than 60% of it`s rated weight supporting strenght at prolonged temperatures over 900F, about the time it`s edges are beginning to glow. And am utterly convinced having the rubble of a PAIR of 110 story buildings crashing into and on 2 sides of WTC 7 caused enormous REPEATED shock wave damage to that structure which so weakened it that it too eventually collapsed. Am no mathmatician, but the mass (total weight of the buildings) even slowed somewhat by the further collapsing structure underneath still impacted VERY CLOSE (or on) to it with tremendous forces radiating outwards. Secrets ARE possible to keep, but even the F-117 "Nighthawk" ("Stealth") program, 1 of this country`s most successful peacetime "ULTRA" secret projects was on the verge of "leaking' before the USAF and DoD decided to make it "public" knowledge...simply just do not believe even (or especially) the US Gov`t could keep this "secret"; as far as some criminally inclined real estate moguls pulling it off, their own competition would have sold them out GLADLY in a "New York minute" upon hearing the faintest whisper that COULD BE PROVEN. Send the "bad guys" to prison and step in as HEROS and REAP the reward AND the contracts for clean up and rebuilding...not 1 person involved eventually getting a concious, or more likely suddenly becoming GREEDY and threatening to "blow the whistle"? Given base human nature THAT is VERY unlikely...


----------



## CrappieTacos (Jun 22, 2010)

Good lord. First sasquatch and now this. :excruciating: Maybe we should just stick to fishing and hunting around here...


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

I got to thinking maybe you guys are right. We should just accept the "official" answers and let it go. Why pick a scab, right? So, I changed the way I thought about it, and started looking from a victims family perspective. Guess what? They've got just as many unanswered questions, things like who knew what when, why was the FBI not allowed to investigate, former President Bush's activities after he learned of the attacks, why was Bin Laden's family allowed to fly out of our country when all other flights were cancelled, why, if they have told us everything, are so many documents sealed, and on and on. It seems that they have just as many unanswered questions surrounding individual actions and unexplained events, as others have about the structures themselves. These unanswered questions are compiled by the Family Steering Committee can be found here:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/ 

The Family Steering Committee (FSC) is an independent, nonpartisan group of individuals who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The FSC is not affiliated with any other group, nor does it receive financial or other support from any organization or individual. 


I think the things that fuels the "conspiracy" speculations, are a combination of these unanswered questions, and within the NIST report itself, the use of words like "unlikely" or "improbable", and seemingly misleading answers. This excerpt is the type of thing I mean: 

Question- 18._ In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited, or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the WTC building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News, shows WTC 7 in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse &#8220;disappearing&#8221; from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. How does NIST explain the difference between the NBC News video and the other videos?

Answer-The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST. 

NIST received videos directly from many different sources during its technical investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Videos were logged into a database as they were received and were accessible only to those working on the investigation. NIST protected the integrity of the original videos at all times. Many of these videos are available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/repository_home.cfm.
_

You see, they didn't answer the question, and they give no answer to why their official chain of events (based on the other videos from different angles) are clearly disputed by another factual news video of the same event, just from a different angle. 

Something else I've learned is that there was at least one car bomb that exploded outside the State Dept. that day. It was reported on during the 9/11 coverage as reported by the Associated Press and confirmed by the State Dept. According to transcipts of the radio traffic that day, at least 2 suspects were apprehended in connection with a van full of explosives that was not detonated. I've never heard anything about who did that, was there more than one, and where else did they explode? What happened to the suspects? That may explain the explosions that eyewitnesses reported, but, all of the focus seems to be on the fires, the tower's structure, and the collapses.

I'm sorry, IMO, after taking all things into account, something still stinks. I wish it were so easy as to say it was Al Queda, but as I see it, there is more going on. If not, why the unanswered questions? Why would the Mayor of New York block a FBI investigation? Why do some of the NIST explanations seem to not explain, but rather go off topic? Why the rush to dispose of the building materials? If you question the answers, you end up with more questions than answers. I can easily see why these things would lead people to believe there is something being withheld, even a conspiracy.


----------



## Burks (Jun 22, 2011)

And do you ever think the government is going to cave into conspiracy theorists?

"Yup, you guys got us. We killed 3000 of our own people. Good detective work. We have an open CIA director position, you guys want it?"

Steel doesn't have to melt to fail. Ever seen a car engine destroy itself due to excessive heat? Nothing melted, but if you get metal hot enough it distorts under pressure causing a failure or a tower to fall.

Search: Maddox Mission 9/11 and read the article.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

People came here from another nation, and learned to fly planes so that they could fly them into buildings? Thats just flat out nuts. Only a crazy person would believe that, right? Yet no one can believe that explosives could be part of the same carefully planned process? In the SAME buildings in which explosives were planted before??? When all three contiguously located buildings fell in a fashion remarkably similar to that of planned demolition? 

Lol, this thread truly is getting comical and not from the logical questions being asked, but as a result of those who can only pretty much demean those asking the questions that can not be answered.

Witnesses describing molten steel in the rubble, which we are told to simply ignore... and the photos of vaporization to some of the steel...three buildings dropping nearly perfectly symmetrically (well, not PERFECTLY, if you look real, real, real, real, close at the video, over and over again, you may just notice a tine bit of asymmetry in there...maybe), multiple credible reports of explosions (plural) both before and during the collapsing actions...all of this and more which is dismissed offhand...reminds me of that famous line "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" 

Those who ask question are likened to the believers of Bigfoot. Ironically, you have to be of the same mindset to ignore all the documented facts that point to the possibility of some other potential causes for not one but three buildings which fell in a nearly perfectly symmetrical fashion in front of dozens of cameras with thousands of eyewitnesses..never mind that this is the PRECISE location where bombs where planted only a dozen or so years previously.

Move along steeple. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Huz-yak (Jun 3, 2011)

I Fish said:


> It took almost 65 years for this to come to light. I'd say they did a fair job of covering it up:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html?_r=0


Took the freedom of information act to finally reveal indisputable evidence that FDR and almost 30 top military/cabinets members knew about the Pearl Harbor attacks almost a week in advance and no one is talking about this either. If a sick bastard like FDR could pull his trick to get his war, I don't think it is much of a stretch to think that some people in DC/Wall Street made certain that the buildings fell, (especially the SEC offices).


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

The whole thing was probably filmed and faked beforehand, like the moon landing.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

vc1111 said:


> People came here from another nation, and learned to fly planes so that they could fly them into buildings? Thats just flat out nuts. Only a crazy person would believe that, right? Yet no one can believe that explosives could be part of the same carefully planned process? In the SAME buildings in which explosives were planted before??? When all three contiguously located buildings fell in a fashion remarkably similar to that of planned demolition?
> 
> Lol, this thread truly is getting comical and not from the logical questions being asked, but as a result of those who can only pretty much demean those asking the questions that can not be answered.
> 
> ...


You keep saying bombs and explosives were planted in one of the towers. It was one bomb...... a van filled with fertilizer which is very explosive. It wasn't a team of demolition experts stringing primer cord or wires to detonators. There was nobody wrapping support columns with shaped charges. Somebody drove and parked a truck bomb and it exploded. Just like had happened at the Marine barracks in Beirut. Just like had happened at the Federal building in Oklahoma City. BTW......you seem to believe they looked like imploded buildings. Where in ANY of the videos of ANY of those buildings collapsing do you see the outer posts being blown up? You don't see it in any of the videos because THEY WEREN'T THERE. Go watch any video of a building implosion and you can clearly see the explosions around the perimeter of the building. 

There is really no sense in going on with this discussion. There are those that will always believe it was some kind of conspiracy. You can debate whether or not our government knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it. On that the conspiracy people have a leg to stand on. Concerning the physical collapse of those buildings, you have no viable leg to stand on. You're chasing a Unicorn people. 

I'm done.....


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

TheCream said:


> The whole thing was probably filmed and faked beforehand, like the moon landing.


Thanks for bringing so much to the table. I find your insight to be astounding. I wonder if it was shot by the OU film crew in one of the underwater caverns of the Hocking River? Maybe, it was Ty and Logan disguised as astonauts?

Oh, by the way, I haven't lived with my Mom since I was 17.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Keep hearing about "melted steel". OK, anyone know exactly HOW LONG the WTC wreckage burned for AFTER the collapse? It WAS NOT a case where the infernos raging inside the Towers were suddenly "snuffed out" and instantly cooled to the touch after coming to rest on the Earth below. The on scene persons had several more days of fire fighting ahead...


----------



## TheCream (Mar 19, 2009)

I Fish said:


> Thanks for bringing so much to the table. I find your insight to be astounding. I wonder if it was shot by the OU film crew in one of the underwater caverns of the Hocking River? Maybe, it was Ty and Logan disguised as astonauts?
> 
> Oh, by the way, I haven't lived with my Mom since I was 17.


Ahh, a clever one you are. I'll play your game and try to step up to your level of intellectual wisdom and wizardry. Occam's Razor, are you familiar with this? More or less, it boils down to the simplest answer tends to be the correct one. Step away and ask yourself, which is more likely:

A) an elaborate scheme devised and carried out with at least partial complicity by our government to kill American citizens took place, mountains of evidence was faked, explosives planted in the buildings, the media was all manipulated, not one word of this plot leaked to the media or public, and the American people were fooled in quite possibly the biggest coverup in the history of our nation or

B) The terrorists did it. 

What is next? The school shooting in Connecticut was masterminded and carried out by extremist liberals to spur on increased gun control? Excellent example of the testing in South America in the late 1940's, by the way. The way communications were _booming_ back then in the information age, it's a wonder anything could be kept a secret. Newspapers and the radio were that era's Twitter and Internet, I guess.


----------



## 9Left (Jun 23, 2012)

Net said:


> The "government" lost a lot of lives on 9/11 too. One of them was Martha Reszke, the wife of my best friend. She was killed (vaporized) in the Pentagon attack. In the end we are all still AMERICANS. Yes, even our government! I'm pretty certain of one thing. This lousy economy has created way too much idle time for my fellow AMERICANS to sit around pondering such foolishness.


...well said. All this crap talk about conspiracy is nonsense


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Fishlandr75 said:


> ...well said. All this crap talk about conspiracy is disrespectful nonsense


IMO, the fact that so many unanswered questions posed by the families of the 9/11 victims is, in itself, disrespectful. Also, the nature of these families questions would appear to suggest that, they too, believe there may be a cover up. IMO, they deserve answers, even if it's at the cost of someones reputation.

TheCream, using Occam's Razor to dissect Project Gunrunner, and the smaller, yet highly publicized, Fast and Furious operation within:

A)an elaborate scheme devised and carried out with complicity by our government, going nearly to, if not all the way, to the top of multiple federal agencies, possibly to include the POTUS. There has been a massive cover-up by some of the highest ranking officials in our government, by sealing documents, invoking executive privilege, possibly to include evidence tampering and destruction. May well be the worst case of bad foriegn policy in N. America in our lifetime. 

B) The Mexican drug cartels did it.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

I Fish said:


> There has been a massive cover-up by some of the highest ranking officials in our government, by sealing documents, invoking executive privilege, possibly to include evidence tampering and destruction.


This was actually done. It was because the government screwed up and US citizens got killed in the mistake, making it impossible to hide UNLESS the POTUS sealed the records. So, try again. Two totally different scenarios. You're saying that the US government intentionally killed all the people at the world trade center, intentionally cost the country billions, and had the capability to cover up / hide / seal ALL the evidence. Bill Clinton couldn't even cover up a stain on Monica's dress for crying out loud.
[/COLOR] 
And you better watch what else you say...black invisible helicopters are circling your house.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Ahh I was wondering how long it would take for the gun runner comparisons. This thread is only getting better! Let me guess, birther? Don't lie.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

sbreech said:


> This was actually done. It was because the government screwed up and US citizens got killed in the mistake, making it impossible to hide UNLESS the POTUS sealed the records. So, try again. Two totally different scenarios. You're saying that the US government intentionally killed all the people at the world trade center, intentionally cost the country billions, and had the capability to cover up / hide / seal ALL the evidence. Bill Clinton couldn't even cover up a stain on Monica's dress for crying out loud.
> [/COLOR]
> And you better watch what else you say...black invisible helicopters are circling your house.




I guess I don't see too many differences, other than scale and nationality. Potentially, Fast and Furious, if allowed to continue, could have lead to the loss of many more American lives, however, that statement is not meant to diminish the 200+ Mexican lives it has cost so far.

As to the helicopters, I don't care. I watched a Youtube video, and learned how to make a photon intercepting generator that fits nicely on top of my foil hat. Now, not only can they not control my thoughts, they can't see them either.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

I Fish said:


> As to the helicopters, I don't care. I watched a Youtube video, and learned how to make a photon intercepting generator that fits nicely on top of my foil hat. Now, not only can they not control my thoughts, they can't see them either.


Now THAT'S funny.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

Bass me, you're done? Lol, you quit before you've answered any of the tough questions, like the numerous reports of explosions and how the steel managed to reach a temp high enough to melt, and on and on. You can't answer for how even one building fell the way it did, let alone three.

In an earlier post you suggest that the melted, flowing steel might be some other material. How nice and neat. Just cast doubt about its very existence despite the clear evidence thereof and viola!...the question is rendered moot? You'd make a great detective. You could simply choose whatever evidence fits your answer and just dismiss any remaining pertinent facts..."how do we know that smoking gun the suspect is holding is in fact a gun? Maybe it's a ham sammich!"

You question the explosion of the outer columns...do they even need to be destroyed to achieve implosion? Apparently you presume they do. I don't pretend to know. I'm asking how three buildings fell in a fashion so perfectly emulating that of planned demolitions like we've all seen on various documentaries over the years. So...are you an expert on the subject? Please enlighten the thread if you can. I'm sincerely interested in any LOGICAL explanation given in a civil tone.

Turner, you're not "hearing about" melted flowing steel on this thread as though someone is fabricating its possible occurrence; there is documentation and eyewitness testimony to prove it was there. And yes the temps it might generate would cause the wreckage to burn a long time. Lol, and yea, it would take a long time to fight the fire it would cause. it a question of what in the explanations given could cause the steel to reach temps high enough to both melt it and vaporize it. No one is arguing that it would cause other stuff in the wreckage to remain ablaze. I would also add that no one is addressing the evidence of vaporized steel either. 

The Cream: I agree with you. The terrorists did it. I just am not convinced they did without some other catalysts, something that could cause the explosions that were reported by cops and firemen on the scene, something that would cause such perfectly symmetrical demolition. Don't think it could happen? Heck, prior to that day no one would have EVER believed that people would come here to learn to fly planes just to do what they did either. If anyone had known about the "pilot training" prior to the events of 9/11 and written about it on this board, they would have been ridiculed. 

Burk: "steel doesn't have to melt to fail." Sorry. It DID melt. Lots of it. And according the engineers in the video, heat may have warped it, but there is no official explanation for the melting, the "rivers" of it that were documented by multiple sources, nor the vaporization of the metal. No one questions that the steel may have warped/failed from the heat and perhaps caused the collapse. I would and do question how the heat could have caused such perfectly symmetrical damage over vast spans so as to cause such a perfect collapse...in all three buildings. As i said, I even wondered about it the day it happened.

Clearly quite a number posting here didn't watch the video. As the author inferred, it's hard to intelligently comment on what is IN the video if you don't watch it. Highly educated, tenured engineers, most of whom specialize in high rise buildings are asking the same questions and, to a man, they seem to agree that the pan caking of multiple buildings would not have happened without other catalysts.

I do not believe the American government is responsible and I never did.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

http://www.debunking911.com



I'm not even sure why we are entertaining the idea of some molten river of steel in the first place. I dispute the basic premise of your whole debate. Prove it. What happened to it??? How on earth do you think one would deal with a solidified "river of steel"? They build on top of it? Lets start from the beginning here. 

There are no sequenced sounds of explosions in any of te original footage. None. Zero. All you have are multiple reports of varying degree which may be explained in a number of ways, one of which is sympathetic recollection. Someone hears someone say something which they then pass along as their own experience. Watch the following video. You hear screams and everything else. No sequenced explosions. Just sounded like a waterfall. "Huge explosion" not "many explosions". You'll have to explain that before I buy into any other aspect of this conspiracy. Right there is where it ends for me. It's that simple really.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

Vaporized metal. I think aliens were behind it and were using plasma lazer rays from invisible ships because their species needs the rivers of flowing molten steel that covered all of NYC to survive.
[/COLOR] 
Lets see....thousands of pounds of fuel, thousands of tons of pressure...columns of pressurized air hitting the ignited fuel from elevator shafts....there very well could have been many explosions heard.

Nope, it was a conspiracy. Experts say so on the internets.

Now the big issue : WHY?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

sbreech said:


> Vaporized metal. I think aliens were behind it and were using plasma lazer rays from invisible ships because their species needs the rivers of flowing molten steel that covered all of NYC to survive.
> [/COLOR]
> Lets see....thousands of pounds of fuel, thousands of tons of pressure...columns of pressurized air hitting the ignited fuel from elevator shafts....there very well could have been many explosions heard.
> 
> ...




There werent many explosions at all. Besides, using conspiracy logic they'd need many explosions all the way down the buildings since floors pancaking themselves into oblivion isn't realistic. Each floor would need blasted apparently. Watch the videos and hear the sounds. Or lack thereof. Thats how I know the tragedy. Right there. Huge engulfing dust cloud coming down the street at the cameras.. People screaming, cursing. Sirens blaring. Sounds of disbelief as huge buildings come raining down as dust and sheets of paper. Strange as it may be. It happened. And there wasn't a bunch of explosions. There just simply wasn't I don't care what a handfull of "eyewitnesses" say. There are exponentially many zMORE witnesses who DIDN'T hear them. I can also hear pretty good with my own ears. I posted in the last thread. Do youselves a favor and watch that about ten times, then watch some actual recorded controlled demoltions. Thats not what we saw or heard on 9/11. People more or less standing a stones throw away from the buildings recording footage with their phones and cameras.. Theres plenty of it available. More than enough for me.





 compare to:






Cmon now... Seriously?? Watch ANY of the videos on that channel. But wait! Theres more!






More 9/11 footage: Warning: graphic footage.





More. Who now wants to argue the actual footage contains sounds of multiple detonations? Did you catch the guy saying "I hope I live. I hope I live. It's coming down on me. Here it comes. I'm getting behind a car". Starts at 2:17 on the above video. THATS as real as it gets my friends.

From inside the north tower lobby, the south tower collapsing:






Where are all the explosions??? Take your time. Find them for me and then we can continue this discussion. Take your time.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

To the average person , the sound of each floor crashing down into the next one would no doubt sound like a series of explosions....and thats exactly what happened. Even those buildings were never designed to have an airliner crash into them. There was no need for extra explosives , those huge planes loaded down with fuel and people were enough. Yeah those buildings are built strong , but no matter how it happened , each floor was not strong enough to withstand the multiple floors above it crashing down into them. Conspiracy theories abound , but if you take some time to think about it , and know anything about structures at all , its not hard to see what happened. The planes caused the upper floors to fall down to the lower floors , each level that gave way added tons of weight and extra momentum , consecutively taking out each level as it came down. Thats your perfectly symetrical demolition right there. Its not that there are too many unanswered questions , just that there are too many unnecessary ones.


----------



## FISHIN216 (Mar 18, 2009)

I love how if you don't believe these conspiracy idiots.....yes I said idiots. You are a sheep and you believe anything anyone will tell you. Get over yourselves. Its nothing but speculation. STOP

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Again, am NO "expert', however that has never stopped me before and won`t let this be an exception. As far as "molten steel" or "rivers of molten steel", there WERE other types of metal in the Towers. Gavanized conduit (lead coated mild steel tubing carrying wiring) and of course copper wiring were present in great abundance and in most buildings is routed upwards into a building along utility or service trunks; THESE metals DO melt readily at a relatively lower temperature AND can tend to actually "flow" down lower larger conduit below, actually puddling and creating secondary fires from the electrically conductive resulting liquid materials coming into contact with "live" circuits. Also aluminum was also present in quantity in BOTH buildings. Point is it takes about 1,200F for PROLONGED PERIODS to liquify most structural steel. AM NOT saying those sort of temperatures weren`t possible or present; point is most structural steel "only" has to be heated to 900F to FAIL. Explosives DO MOMENTARILY develope high blast temperatures to vaporize it in SMALL AMOUNTS but those temperatures are NOT PROLONGED ENOUGH TO MELT IT in large amounts...AND they leave "signature" physical AND chemical traces DIFFERENT from welding "flux" or spall. Your ball...


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Oi, its going to be a long winter. 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Dandrews (Oct 10, 2010)

Rosie ODonnell believes it, thats all I need to know.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

sbreech said:


> Vaporized metal. I think aliens were behind it and were using plasma lazer rays from invisible ships because their species needs the rivers of flowing molten steel that covered all of NYC to survive.
> 
> Lets see....thousands of pounds of fuel, thousands of tons of pressure...columns of pressurized air hitting the ignited fuel from elevator shafts....there very well could have been many explosions heard.
> 
> ...


*I hope ya'll know that was sarcasm. I'm NOT one of the conspiracy nuts.*


----------



## CoolWater (Apr 11, 2004)

I watched 3 planes flown by radical muslums attack our country. There are evil misguided people in this world that want to kill people that don't think like them. 
These conspiracy videos scream of propaganda and self promotion. I know this is the "lounge" forum but some people need to go catch fish.


----------



## Huz-yak (Jun 3, 2011)

Lowell H Turner said:


> Keep hearing about "melted steel". OK, anyone know exactly HOW LONG the WTC wreckage burned for AFTER the collapse? It WAS NOT a case where the infernos raging inside the Towers were suddenly "snuffed out" and instantly cooled to the touch after coming to rest on the Earth below. The on scene persons had several more days of fire fighting ahead...


There was video on the news that day that showed molten metal pouring out of the corner of one of the buildings... orange hot. So what ever melted the metal got it to well over 2000°F = not jet fuel. Were there gas lines or something else that could have created it? not sure.


----------



## Huz-yak (Jun 3, 2011)

TheCream said:


> A) an elaborate scheme devised and carried out with at least partial complicity by our government to kill American citizens took place, mountains of evidence was faked, explosives planted in the buildings, the media was all manipulated, not one word of this plot leaked to the media or public, and the American people were fooled in quite possibly the biggest coverup in the history of our nation or
> 
> B) The terrorists did it.


Complicity? sure. Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

vc1111 said:


> Bass me, you're done? Lol, you quit before you've answered any of the tough questions, like the numerous reports of explosions and how the steel managed to reach a temp high enough to melt, and on and on. You can't answer for how even one building fell the way it did, let alone three.
> 
> In an earlier post you suggest that the melted, flowing steel might be some other material. How nice and neat. Just cast doubt about its very existence despite the clear evidence thereof and viola!...the question is rendered moot? You'd make a great detective. You could simply choose whatever evidence fits your answer and just dismiss any remaining pertinent facts..."how do we know that smoking gun the suspect is holding is in fact a gun? Maybe it's a ham sammich!"
> 
> You question the explosion of the outer columns...do they even need to be destroyed to achieve implosion? Apparently you presume they do. I don't pretend to know. I'm asking how three buildings fell in a fashion so perfectly emulating that of planned demolitions like we've all seen on various documentaries over the years. So...are you an expert on the subject? Please enlighten the thread if you can. I'm sincerely interested in any LOGICAL explanation given in a civil tone.


Well I thought I was done...... I'll certainly keep it civil. Without, as you implied...... dodging your tough questions. 

Reports of numerous explosions: I wonder what a steel girder breaking sounds like? I bet it sounds like an explosion. I wonder what breaking concrete sounds like? I bet it sounds like an explosion. I wonder what chunks of debris falling many floors down elevator shafts, and stairwells sounds like? I bet it sounds like an explosion. I, and others I worked with, actually watched 2 walls of a 2 story high, block building fall. I was inside the garage of a place I worked and heard popping sounds. Very loud popping sounds. We had time enough to come out the door...... walk the distance of the width of 3 double width garage bays, and watch it fall. Could there have been explosions other than the things I questioned? Of course there could have. Who knows what was blowing up inside a building that had thousands of gallons of jet fuel pouring through it. Have you ever heard electrical explosions? I have. I live across the street from an electrical substation. I've heard more than a couple of transformers explodes. Have you heard live power lines brought down in a tornado, popping and cracking? Are you also aware that firemen inside the lobbies of the towers thought they heard explosions, when in reality it was the sound of falling bodies hitting the roof of the mezzanine? You can see that in more than a couple of documentaries that have been on television. The difference in our detective skills is ......you and others assume it was planted explosives, and nothing else, without any evidence to back it up. I assume the obvious and the many things it could have been, with mountains of evidence to back it up. 

You mention rivers of molten metal. Which by the way I never stated they didn't exist. They did exist because evidently like you, I saw the pictures of them. What I did do was question the content of these "rivers of molten steel". Depending on which experts you want to agree with, the estimated temperatures for the fires burning in the towers were anywhere from 1,200 to as high as 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit . . Do a Google search of the melting points of metal. You'll find a rather extensive list of metals with melting temperatures well within the temperature ranges given by the experts. Once again, I assume and consider the many different possibilities, .... you assume and consider only one thing.

You ask if I am an expert in controlled demolition. No I'm not. You ask if the outer columns need to be severed to achieve implosion. I don't know. What I do know is this ..... in EVERY video I have watched of buildings being imploded, you can clearly see the explosions of the shaped charges that are on the outer columns of the building. So evidently the experts tend to think they do. By the way, they are large visible explosions. Not a little puff of smoke here and there as windows burst from the force of air being compressed by each floor collapsing on to another. Once again, you assume and consider the impossible ... that teams of demolition experts rigged each and every floor of two 110 story, 1,362' and 1,368' tall buildings with thousands of shaped charges, and miles of detonator cord. They did this all in a few weeks...... or for all I know you think they could have been doing this for years. They did it all without arousing any suspicion, and they did it all without one person exposing the plot. 

I assume and consider that it was two jet airliners loaded with enough fuel to make a flight across the United States, being flown into two high rise buildings at very high speeds. And that the damage done by the massive release of energy of those impacts, combined with the energy released by the explosion of jet fuel and the heat of the resulting fires, was more than enough to cause fatal damage to the super structure of both of the twin towers. WTC 7 came down as a result of falling debris, massive seismic shocks from the collapsing towers that were transferred into its structure, the design and structure of the buildings lower floors. The fires that raged within the building for hours. That evidence and facts don't matter to you, because once again you choose to believe the bizarre in lieu of facts. 

It's funny that you would say "I'm sincerely interested in any LOGICAL explanation given in a civil tone." shortly after you mocked me, saying that I would ...... "make a great detective. You could simply choose whatever evidence fits your answer and just dismiss any remaining pertinent facts..."how do we know that smoking gun the suspect is holding is in fact a gun? Maybe it's a ham sammich!"

I'd make a far better detective than you would, because I look at the facts of the case...... the hard physical evidence. When I have a question, I investigate. I look for other possibilities. I look for answers in other places. I don't watch a video presented by "experts" that discount and ignore the obvious in favor of the bizarre. You make a joke that the smoking gun must be a "ham sammich" That's exactly what the experts that you so wholeheartedly agree with, are doing. They are turning a smoking gun, into a "ham sammich" It must be one HECK of a tasty "ham sammich" because you are eating it up. LOL

BTW...... the questions the 9/11 Truthers ask aren't that tough. They're more remedial, than difficult.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

While our government has been involved in some less than stellar acts. I think anybody with a little sense can put 2 and 2 together and not come up with conspiracy. I will say one thing for this thread..it really shows that there are crazy people out there. 

One question for the Monday morning chemical engineer that keeps claiming molten steel. How are you able to tell the difference...from 300 yards away through a camera lens (of which, the film could have been doctored? Since we're talking conspriracy!)... between molten steel and burning pools of jet fuel? Your the one claiming it is steel. It's your responsibility to prove it, not just discount every other possibility and say "it is". We are to accept your conclusion as correct with no proof, but every other conclusion is false with no proof?

Well..when I think about it.. you and you "theorists" believe steel needs to become liquid before it breaks. So I can see why you think your always right. You have a clear grasp on physics. ?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Watch the videos, compare. Theres simply no explosions as you would have in a controlled demolition. The fact is there weren't a bunch of detonations as you see in a controlled demolition. Thats fact. Watch the videos. Its a constant crackling rumble. I've posted the videos. I don't know why we are entertaining that idea at all. It didn't happen. We have gobs of undeniable evidence proving that it didn't. They don't. The conspiracy theorists have a couple pics of windows popping and dust coming out. And 1 billowing fireball(there was stuff burning inside the building folks). I have yet to hear anyone say they used silent dynamite so they have to base this all on the assumption there were a bunch of explosions that were destroying the buildings as they fell. They can't prove multiple explosions with any of the buildings let alone all three. Why am I here talking about this lol. Ugh. Watch the footage without the paranoid schizophrenic soundtrack telling you what to think. That stuff is garbage.


----------



## vc1111 (Apr 13, 2004)

Muskarp, I don't recall anyone saying that steel needs to melt before it breaks and I know I never said that, but if since you mentioned physics, implying that you are quite familiar with the topic, please explain how a plane can hit a building in just such a way that the resulting fires will uniformly weaken the structure so as to cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse.

The explain how such a remarkable event could happen twice. 

Then explain how a third building, not struck by a plane, but only by falling debris and not the target thereof in a uniform way, could also collapse in such a perfectly symmetrical fashion. Three for three. Now that, my friend, is what I call some interesting physics. You buy that and you think anyone who questions it is crazy? Lol, that type of "coincidence" what a thinking person is would call crazy.


Also note, I have NOT suggested government conspiracy, or any conspiracy other than that of the terrorists themselves. As far as they are concerned, they most certainly did conspire to caused the events. So anyone who suggests there was no conspiracy, as you did, is simply not looking at the facts.

As to "how I am able to tell," once again, your reading comprehension skills are showing. Watch the video, pal. The people who ask the questions ARE engineers. Refute what they suggest, if you can do so. Their questions and testimony along with the video PROOF and eyewitness testimony will require something more than the left-handed attack you seem to think is appropriate.

Bass me, the people who reported hearing the explosions are professional firefighters and law enforcement. They have heard all that you described and more I would imagine and they made no allowances such as those you describe. You're either reaching or doubting their credibility and experience. What I've heard or not heard is irrelevant. I defer to their experience and credibility, not mine...or yours. They were on the scene that day.

You state that I "assume" this or that. Again, read my posts. I assume only one thing: the odds of three buildings falling in perfect pancake fashion (when two of them supposedly had a common cause and the third did not) after suffering from perfectly uniform and perfectly distributed structural failure are not odds that I accept without question.

It is those like yourself perhaps, that buy into the given reasons for three buildings pan caking perfectly, that are "assuming and considering only one thing." To wit: planes hit the building. Fire ensured. The floors collapsed so uniformly as to cause the building to drop straight down. I fail to see how anyone would swallow that happening once, let alone three times.

You also use quotations around the word "experts," apparently hoping to demean or besmirch the engineers who testified. What part of their credentials is fabricated or the substance of fraud on your mind? Sorry if their educated, valid testimony flys in the face of what you've been asked to believe, but none the less, if you have the credentials to trump theirs, please show them. Otherwise, it is they you must prove wrong, not me. I find their information and the video of the events we all saw over and over again on or about 9/11 to be enough to make me question what has been stated as cause and effect. Ironically, the experts with knowledge that you and I do NOT have, find the events and the explanation for those events that you choose to believe to be "bizarre and in lieu of facts."
L

I'm out of time, but I appreciate your response and Ill try to get back here later when I have more time.

By the way, I'd like to address your comments about "reaching each and every floor" to add a catalyst of some type.

Fishin216, you are going to pop a vein, buddy. If questioning the seemingly magical pan caking of three buildings from two disparate causes troubles you so much, simply click on something else. We're just talkin' here, man. Relax.

Lowell, your suggestion as to copper and aluminum is a point taken. Of course, as the video suggests, why were such questions not asked, let alone answered?


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

vc1111 said:


> Muskarp, explain how a plane can hit a building in just such a way that the resulting fires will uniformly weaken the structure so as to cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse.





> Then explain how a third building, not struck by a plane, but only by falling debris and not the target thereof in a uniform way, could also collapse in such a perfectly symmetrical fashion. Three for three.


That's the funny thing about gravity. It acts the same on all objects.


Nobody claims the fires uniformly weakened the the structure? Load apparently had been transferred to other load bearing structures until they could no longer support it. Then, gravity, which is exerted equally, pulled the structure straight to the ground, which would be expected. Plus, the design of the WTC (if I'm not mistaken) has the load bearing closest to the center, which could explain why there was little lean prior to failure. If, however, the impacts where lower on the structure, maybe the effects of one side weakening would have been more apparent with a gradual lean before failure. However, even in this case lean would probably be slight before a catastrophic load failure would start a downward chain reaction of collapses that would bring it straight down and not over like a tree.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

vc1111 said:


> the people who reported hearing the explosions are professional firefighters and law enforcement.


So how does that make them any more able than the rest of us to differentiate the sound of tons of steel popping from weight or ounces of explosives popping from the government. Both are violent releases of energy, which in the heat of battle may become foggy, and probably could barely be separated anyway, coming from inside a structure designed with noise absorbing/ blocking qualities.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

> Bass me, the people who reported hearing the explosions are professional firefighters and law enforcement. They have heard all that you described and more I would imagine and they made no allowances such as those you describe. You're either reaching or doubting their credibility and experience. What I've heard or not heard is irrelevant. I defer to their experience and credibility, not mine...or yours. They were on the scene that day.


Bullcrap. Prove it. Show me the transcripts from 9/11 please. I don't care about what people are recollecting 10 years later. I like the stuff from that day. Watch the videos I posted vc. Comment on what you hear please. You aren't just going to ignore all the video and audio evidence with some blanket statement about stuff that doesn't exist. There were no chains of explosions while the buildings were collapsing. There simply weren't. Show me a credible report saying there were please. What we'll see is "an explosion" or "a bomb". Notice the singular. A. meaning one or one of a couple. Not many in sequence which is whats required in a controlled demolition to bring down a building of that size. You can't keep ignoring all of the evidence in favor of a few "eyewitness" whos words you are twisting to support your idea of what happened.


We can in fact go straight back to that day and see and hear EXACTLY what happened. Its not a mystery. There simply wasn't a bunch of explosions before or while the buildings falling. I really don't know why folks are playing along. Has no one heard the footage from the events? Is there something I'm missing here?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth
Dear Mr. Gage and members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
I am a member of AE911Truth (pending verification) and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. I have
also contributed articles to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While I appreciate the work you and others
are doing to examine the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I am concerned that many arguments
put forth are incorrect. Please don&#8217;t mistake me for a NIST apologist or an official cover-up story
believer. The truth movement needs to be very sure of its claims to avoid being dismissed as ignorant
fools, nut-jobs or politically motivated manipulators. Justice is clearly dependent on the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. Because of the large number of fallacious claims purveyed by
various groups within the movement, my approach has been and will continue to be to examine
claims on both sides of the argument and take them at their own merit. I hope others will embrace
this approach so that the truth movement can live up to its basic values and achieve its well meaning
goals.



> From AE911Truth with my comments interspersed:
> &#8221;As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics
> of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
> 1. Extremely rapid onset of &#8220;collapse&#8221; The validity of this claim rests on the definition of &#8220;extremely rapid&#8221;. NIST provides evidence of growing instability 10 min prior to collapse including smoke expulsions from partial floor collapses and bowing of the exterior wall on the south side of WTC1.
> ...


Oh wow, you'd have thought I wrote that eh? lol.... Game over really. But we'll continue.

Heres more:


> 12. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all
> of that molten metal?)
> Does any evidence for &#8220;tons of molten metal&#8221; exist? What metals comprise this molten metal? This author is only aware of witness statements regarding molten metal and only small pieces of previously molten metal. Can molten metal observed in the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before? The fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate and any thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which wasnot observed. If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a reasonable issue to investigate. Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be
> considered indicative of a thermate attack.





Lets stop saying all three buildings fell exactly alike as well. Two fell from the top down. 1 didn't.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

Believe that the "official" final report concluded that indeed the internal supporting structure at approx. the aircraft impact areas and immediately lower floors were the areas that 1st gave way. Lower down, as the Towers further collapsed and disintigrated into rubble and slabs the stronger inner core actually broke up the floors above as they fell upon it before in turn being obliterated. The shaped charges used in building demolition are used on beams of structural steel that HAVE TO BE SPECIALLY PRE WEAKENED to ENSURE the building goes down a certain direction, in a predetermined failure sequience. NOT ALL those pre weakened beams AND shaped explosive charge "signature" burns will be destroyed in the collapse. KEEP IN MIND the FBI, CIA and several other agencies exhaustively examined a great deal of that structural steel, along with hundreds of VERY experienced steel workers helping with the rescue and later clean up. Most "high iron" men would politely be called "*******', but they are still true EXPERTS at what THEY do, and given the general mood at that time would BET ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY if THEY "smelled a rat" it AIN`T staying "secret" for long...THEY would go to the press AND media faster than the proberbial "speeding bullet'...as tightly knit a group as they are proffesionally, "shutting THEM up" as to what they couldn`t HELP but to eventually find would be like finding a hole spraying water at the base of Hoover Dam; at that point just FORGET "containment" unless you`re willing to immediately shoot them within possible camera range of national TV (which MIGHT be considered "suspicious")


----------



## Burks (Jun 22, 2011)

Muskarp said:


> So how does that make them any more able than the rest of us to differentiate the sound of tons of steel popping from weight or ounces of explosives popping from the government. Both are violent releases of energy, which in the heat of battle may become foggy, and probably could barely be separated anyway, coming from inside a structure designed with noise absorbing/ blocking qualities.


Exactly. Last time I checked police and firefighters aren't exposed to explosions during training. True explosions mind you, not a small gas line rupture in a house. I'm talking the kind that can bring down a skyscraper. They aren't trained for that, so they can't say what is and isn't a "controlled demolition explosion" or what have you. They are like you and I. 

So if this was "molten steel", what caused it? People keep saying jet fuel could not have caused molten steel, so what did? Was there a forge in there we don't know about? Tons of thermate?


----------



## Daveo76 (Apr 14, 2004)

I watched a few videos after reading this thread and they pointed out a flash before the 2nd plane hit and smoke comnig from the other side before the plane was all the way through. A missile maybe??? I'll not say one way or the other but that would cause a little heat. Plenty of videos to sift through.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Huz-yak said:


> There was video on the news that day that showed molten metal pouring out of the corner of one of the buildings... orange hot. So what ever melted the metal got it to well over 2000°F = not jet fuel. Were there gas lines or something else that could have created it? not sure.



I have accidentally , and on purpose , melted aluminum, copper , and brass in a little campfire with just a couple logs on it. In the same fires , without any trouble at all I was able to get steel rebar red hot and glowing. This was just a little campfire. Now you cook thousands of TONS of metals of every shape and size inside a collapsing skyscraper with gas lines , electricity , airplane fuel , running air conditioning and forced air systems , not to mention all the plastics and man made materials contained within the building , and you have your molten metal , you have a collapsing literal "lake" of fire.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Daveo76 said:


> I watched a few videos after reading this thread and they pointed out a flash before the 2nd plane hit and smoke comnig from the other side before the plane was all the way through. A missile maybe??? I'll not say one way or the other but that would cause a little heat. Plenty of videos to sift through.


You have to have your BS meter on high alert watching videos like that. They alter video , and purposly misrepresent.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Burks said:


> Exactly. Last time I checked police and firefighters aren't exposed to explosions during training. True explosions mind you, not a small gas line rupture in a house. I'm talking the kind that can bring down a skyscraper. They aren't trained for that, so they can't say what is and isn't a "controlled demolition explosion" or what have you. They are like you and I.
> 
> So if this was "molten steel", what caused it? People keep saying jet fuel could not have caused molten steel, so what did? Was there a forge in there we don't know about? Tons of thermate?


A very large percentage of firemen and first responders are either trained to identify explosions or have plenty of experience with them firsthand. Especially in major cities.

Jet fuel , burning plastic and other combustables , along with gas lines and forced air units can actually set up a blast furnace environment where even steel could superheat and melt. What people dont realize is just how much fuel and other flamables and available oxygen there is in a tower like that. Its staggeringly HUGE.


----------



## sbreech (Jun 6, 2010)

If I remember correctly, after fueling commercial jets & other aircraft for 5 years, a 747 will hold approximately 330,000 POUNDS of jet fuel. I know that these were not 747's, but they still hold a lot of fuel. 330,000 pounds of jet fuel, at approximately 7 pounds per gallon...that would be 47,142 gallons of jet fuel. That will burn a long time and get very hot, especially when other fuels (i.e. paper, plastic, aluminum, etc...) are added to the mix. It got hot in there folks.


----------



## Daveo76 (Apr 14, 2004)

yonderfishin said:


> You have to have your BS meter on high alert watching videos like that. They alter video , and purposly misrepresent.


 I could care less what you think about the BS meter. All I said was what I saw. That doesn't mean I believe it . That's why I stay out of these discussions most of the time. Not worth being berated over


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Daveo76 said:


> I could care less what you think about the BS meter. All I said was what I saw. That doesn't mean I believe it . That's why I stay out of these discussions most of the time. Not worth being berated over


Sorry you took that wrong Daveo , wasnt trying to berate , just saying there is a lot of "evidence" out there that is not accurate.


----------



## Daveo76 (Apr 14, 2004)

No problem. It's Saturday and I'm stuck at home with nothing better to do Than look at videos. As a matter of fact, too many. But it is good for people to still be thinking about what happened.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

VC1111, this will definitely be my last post to this particular thread. I really see no sense in continuing this discussion. You said you wanted to have a logical discussion. I, and others have presented logical conclusions to the collapse of each of the buildings, based on facts and evidence that many other far more qualified people have also agreed with. You realize there are literally thousands of engineers that agree with the official findings of both NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. There are also statements from hundreds of first responders that contradict those of the first responders that you mention. You imply that I am trying to besmirch the credentials and the reputations of the engineers that testified, and that I am discounting the experience, and statements of the first responders that were on the scene. If I am in fact ignoring their statements and opinions, then you too are guilty of the very same thing, but on a much larger scale. 

I believe it was you that wondered if I even watched the video in the link provided at the very beginning of this thread. If it wasn't, then my apologies. But I did watch it before I made my first post to this thread. I've also watched at least 10 other videos just like it. Three of which were videos of presentations made by Richard Gage at various college campuses in the U.S. and Canada. As I said in a previous post in this thread.... Mr Gage has changed his presentation numerous times as people have pointed out both visual and factual inaccuracies in his presentations. For example.... his presentation used to have an architect that is a member of Mr Gage's organization that claimed there was no pile driver affect that resulted from the upper floors collapsing on the floors below. The presentation actually had this architect narrating the video of both of the Twin Tower collapses. Of course they had to change it because the video evidence clearly shows the intact upper floors of the two towers as they disappeared into the dust clouds. 

Now, the presentation in this recent video has a person (a different person) saying that the floors above the impact zones disintegrated as they were falling. I interpreted the person to be saying that one upper floor collapsed for each lower floor that collapsed. I guess he was trying to say that the towers should have stopped falling after 30 of the lower floors had collapsed, because there was no longer a pile driver affect from the upper floors. 

One very blatant misrepresentation that was in one of the earlier videos I watched, actually had about a 5 minute presentation of the car that is shown in this recent video. They use the car to show the extreme heat that thermite and thermate can produce. The presentation in the earlier Gage presentations had the woman with the ominous voice explaining their demonstration while the video of a 1 lb bucket of thermite that was placed on the hood of the car was ignited. As the video played the ominous voiced woman explained how thermite burned so hot that it melted through the block of the car. Funny thing is ...... it took 15 seconds (I timed it with a watch) for the 1 lb bucket of blazing thermite to burn through the hood of the car. Kind of odd that something that could burn through a structural beam in fractions of a second would take 15 seconds to burn through the hood of what appears to be a Toyota. That wasn't the best part though. Once the thermite had burned through the hood it started dripping into the engine compartment...... guess what? There wasn't an engine in the car. How do I know? Because you could see through the grill that there wasn't an engine in it, There wasn't even a radiator in it. You could clearly see there wasn't as the burning thermite dripped onto the ground below. I wish I could provide you the link for that particular presentation, because it was a real hoot. 

Finally....... do I question the credentials of some of the individuals in Richard Gage's presentations, as well as Richard Gage's credentials. You bet I do. Why shouldn't I? He changed his presentations because he got caught telling lies. Much like the producers of another 9/11 conspiracy organization.... The Spare Change people. I believe they're on their 4th version of their film. Each time it's changed it's been because of inaccuracies that needed to be removed, and not because of new evidence. 

You can choose to believe what I've just posted, or not. I really don't care. I've spent hours going over videos like these. I've taken notes and done hours of research to easily discount the questions the people in the videos raise. Heck...... the videos themselves do that better than I ever could. Watch this linked video again and you'll hear numerous people talk about how fast the lower floors of building 7 fell. Even Richard Gage said that it seemed as if the building fell 100' as if nothing was under it. Guess what? There wasn't anything under it. The lobby in the center of building 7 was 7 stories high. Yet not one mention of that in any of the videos I've watched. If you don't believe me, you can pull up the plans for building 7 on line. The upper floors support post were sitting on trusses. If you watch these videos as you listen to what the people narrating some of the events are saying, you may actually question if they are actually talking about what you are supposed to be seeing.

I've debated these kinds of videos with dozens of 9/11 Truthers. The results have been virtually the same, each and every time. When confronted with the facts and the evidence, all of the Truthers are still Truthers. And they still believe the evidence has been manipulated and covered up. You can say that I am running away because I can't answer the questions if you want. But nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is (no offense) I'm just tired of beating my head against a brick wall.

Enjoy the rest of your discussion with the others.... because I am truly done, this time.

Oh yeah...... I forgot to mention just how right Lowell H Turner was when he talked about the brotherhood of steel workers, and New York City people for that matter. NYC people are a different breed. They don't put up with people screwing with their city. It doesn't matter who you are..... if you aren't a New Yorker you're not one of them.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

yonderfishin said:


> A very large percentage of firemen and first responders are either trained to identify explosions or have plenty of experience with them firsthand. Especially in major cities.


Be serious. You can't possibly think that people could have been trained to that high a level prior to that event. Where does one find this "training center" that has a skyscraper burning until the steel starts popping and crumbling? So, one can tell the difference between steel failure and explosives.

Even if such a place did exist, are we sure the individuals, claiming these pops were explosions, had their certification up to date?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

If the official report was a conspiracy/coverup , it would be on a scale never before seen in the world. 

Ive seen many circulating videos and pictures of things like the devils face in the smoke and dust clouds coming from the towers , and a stillshot of what looks like a missile of some sort mounted under the wings of one of the planes , and many others. Its cool what modern technology can do to alter the real pics and video , some of it is so realistic. But it shows the lengths that people will go to just to spread disinformation and cause chaos. Even firsthand accounts and clips taken from official reports can be used out of context , to be used to promote innacurate details. 

As I said before , there arent too many unanswered questions , just too many unnecessary ones. The questions have been answered the best they can be. There arent too many "experts in the field of plane/tower collisions" in existence in the world. Who in the world would be qualified enough to say things couldnt have happened the way the official report says it did ? Did they ever witness it happening before , on such a scale ? No , I think its pretty safe to say there are still no experts on it , we all just learned what happened this time.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Muskarp said:


> Be serious. You can't possibly think that people could have been trained to that high a level prior to that event. Where does one find this "training center" that has a skyscraper burning until the steel starts popping and crumbling? So, one can tell the difference between steel failure and explosives.



Ah , you misunderstand. 


Do you think they are not trained , especially after being on the job for years in Ney York city to identify explosions in high rises ? Do you think they have not learned about building structure and what it takes for certain things to happen ? Do you think the experienced folks there never encountered explosions in buildings and high rises due to either out of control fires or explosives or both ? A certain percentage of these guys have dealt with things like that before , some multiple times. And yes , they do get training on explosions and the like before they can even be a fireman and that not even counting all the OJT they have got over the years in an area known for its skyscrapers and threat of terrorist attacks. Not even the most experienced can always tell the difference , but in many cases there is much more than the "sound" to go by. Circumstancial evidence , timing , and knowledge of explosives and what they do and what their limits are,......the trained and experienced can be pretty accurate in determing what the cause was. Not saying they are always right , but it would be silly to assume they dont know what they are talking about.

As far as the claims that the pops were explosions , they very well could have been. There were natural chain reactions and fractures going on in both those buildings from the time of impact to the time it was all over. There had to be both explosions and structural failure just due to the impact and heat alone just due to the nature and size of what happened. There are also different types of explosions , some due to ignition , some due to spontanious release of pressure , some due to stress fracture. When one level gives way and collapses into the next there is an explosion. Whats important to note , is that explosives did not need to be present.


----------



## Muskarp (Feb 5, 2007)

You're still reaching! 5 people can witness the same thing and tell different stories. No amount of training negates human error and interpretation.

BTW: you guys need to get over these long winded speeches that nobody reads. Keep it short on sweet! Or is this your thesis your writing?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

I still have yet to hear any explosions. Direct me to the source please. I'm watch video taken from mere feet away. All the noises seem to meld together into this low crackling rumble. You are hearing the thing come crashing down not getting blown up.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Muskarp said:


> You're still reaching! 5 people can witness the same thing and tell different stories. No amount of training negates human error and interpretation.
> 
> BTW: you guys need to get over these long winded speeches that nobody reads. Keep it short on sweet! Or is this your thesis your writing?



Hahaha! , the thing is there very well could have been explosions. But those who have had experience dealing with fires and explosions and training are the best at determining what they were. In a situation like that there were probably both explosions and many things that "sound" like explosions. I would trust an experienced firemans opinion over a general bystanders opinion anyday. Im sure there were explosions , whether anybody could hear them or not , in a situation like that there would have to be. But thats what happens when a huge building burns and comes down. The idea that just because a few heard explosions that there had to be intentional explosives used is just wrong. Ive stood near house and barn fires , heck even brush fires , and heard literal explosions. Ok , thesis over.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> I still have yet to hear any explosions. Direct me to the source please. I'm watch video taken from mere feet away. All the noises seem to meld together into this low crackling rumble. You are hearing the thing come crashing down not getting blown up.


There would have to be explosions , thats what happens when a building burns , especially one that size , some of them big explosions. Spontaneous combustion and pressure release going on all over. But because of the sheer size of those buildings and all the other noise going on it shouldnt be hard to accept that they could be heard in some places and not in others. Just sayin.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Discussions like this are fun. But I have to admit this one really isnt going anywhere anymore. I got caught up in it but its about time to just sit back and watch.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Time to move on gentleman.


----------

