There are two things no one seems to be talking about.
1. Where did the twin towers GO? Each one was MASSIVE - around 500,000 tons - but there was not 500,000 tons of intact rubble present afterwards. Most of the matter in the buildings turned to dust.
2. The twin towers did not collapse. Something far stranger was going on - something that unleashed a tremendous amount of energy. Observe:
The only explanation I have heard that accounts for all the evidence is the use of a Directed Energy weapons.
What we saw was steel and concrete vaporized into dust before our very eyes. That cannot happen due to gravity.
Cf. Tesla, Nikola.
explanation granted wrote:
Cf. Tesla, Nikola.
FYI: "Cf." means "compare to." It doesn't mean "see" or "see, for example...".
This is what I, and most sane people, think happened.
9/11 happened. The planes, all of it.
A few CIA's in Washington, far away from Bush, were thinking: "Dang, we should have acted on this lead, even though we get thousands of leads a day just like this...woops"
The President and his buddies think: "Dang this sucks, we might as well make the most out of this crappy situation. Let's use it as a platform to push our own agendas."
Americans are thinking: "Man this is horrible. What if this happened to me? Are we going to get nuked? My town has a refinery/military base/Capital building in it... something is definitely going to happen to me. Save me Bush! We will follow you!"
Bush: "Well, ok!" (Patriot Act, Wars with oil revenue and dramatic, Shakespearean revenge plots, etc...)
No cover ups, just fuuck ups. On all of our parts.
14:31 In case you want to know wrote:
Bush: "Well, ok!" (Patriot Act, Wars with oil revenue and dramatic, Shakespearean revenge plots, etc...)
Hey deny-tards, the entire system is run by thugs.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/rhetorical-question2001...
Or when the anti-terrorism bill came up on CNN's "Crossfire" last month: "In full disclosure, I wrote that bill. I'm not being facetious." When "Crossfire" host Bill Press offered Biden the avuncular assurance that "it's really a great bill," Biden pressed on: "No. No. I'm not being facetious. I'm not being facetious when I say that."
That exchange points to another problem with Biden as a party spokesman. Rather than build up the credentials of a party deeply mistrusted by the public on foreign affairs, Biden often seems more interested in advertising his own accomplishments. In the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Biden did, in fact, champion an anti-terrorism bill similar to the one now before Congress (though it was, as he complains, badly watered down by anti-government conservatives and leftist civil libertarians). And Biden doesn't let you forget it. "I introduced the terrorism bill in '94 that had a lot of these things in it," he bragged to NBC's Tim Russert on September 30. When I spent the day with him later that week, Biden mentioned the legislation to me, and to several other reporters he encountered, no fewer than seven times. "When I was chairman in '94 I introduced a major antiterrorism bill--back then," he says in the morning, flashing a knowing grin and pausing for effect. (Never mind that he's gotten the year wrong.) Back in his office later that afternoon, he brings it up yet again. "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill." You don't say.
14:31 In case you want to know wrote:
This is what I, and most sane people, think happened.
9/11 happened. The planes, all of it.
A few CIA's in Washington, far away from Bush, were thinking: "Dang, we should have acted on this lead, even though we get thousands of leads a day just like this...woops"
The President and his buddies think: "Dang this sucks, we might as well make the most out of this crappy situation. Let's use it as a platform to push our own agendas."
Americans are thinking: "Man this is horrible. What if this happened to me? Are we going to get nuked? My town has a refinery/military base/Capital building in it... something is definitely going to happen to me. Save me Bush! We will follow you!"
Bush: "Well, ok!" (Patriot Act, Wars with oil revenue and dramatic, Shakespearean revenge plots, etc...)
No cover ups, just fuuck ups. On all of our parts.
Pretty much. Let's start a war so I can scare the crap out of people and get re-elected. But let's not work on WHY we are getting attacked!
Cue the Toby Keith song(s)!
Was trying to post under this name for above post.
LIHOP
MIHOP
Carry on.
Person of Interest wrote:
I'm not an architect or an engineer, but I have to believe there must be some variation in how the building collapses. In other words, if you flew an airliner full of jet fuel into a building the size of the world trade center 100 times, would it collapse the same way every time? Would it even collapse every time?
When I phoned my father, an engineer, shortly after the airplanes crashed he informed me that the buildings would collapse because the steel cannot handle those temperatures. So yes, the buildings would collapse every time.
Choose your delusion wrote:
When I phoned my father, an engineer, shortly after the airplanes crashed he informed me that the buildings would collapse because the steel cannot handle those temperatures. So yes, the buildings would collapse every time.
Ah ok, if your father said so then it is indisputable.
Truth-teller wrote:
Where did the twin towers GO? Each one was MASSIVE - around 500,000 tons - but there was not 500,000 tons of intact rubble present afterwards. Most of the matter in the buildings turned to dust.
1. The rubble heaps from those buildings were enormous. (Clearing them up took forever.) But the heaps certainly took up less space than the towers had, because
2. By volume, the major component of the twin towers was...air. Remove most of the air from the equation, and the Towers take up less space. But, even so, the heaps might not be as big as you'd expect, because
3. A significant fraction (though not "most") of the buildings became dust and blew away. We were lucky that the wind was from the north that day--a lot of the dust blew out toward sea--but plenty of it stayed around, too, as those of us who dealt over the following weeks with the dust accumulation on everything, fouled air, and that burning-computer smell can tell you.
This thread has 220 posts? Seriously?
You can go ahead and inform your dad that most of the jet fuel was burned off in the fireball, and that the temperatures would not be hot enough to weaken or melt the steel. The severing of columns is a different story... but it is well documented that many columns stayed intact.
Kibitzer,
You are right to say that a major component of the twin towers was air. Even so, how can you account for the fact that a significant fraction of the buildings became dust? Under what conditions do steel and concrete turn to dust?
This was no ordinary dust cloud -- it was a pyroclastic cloud that engulfed virtually all of lower Manhattan:
Also, I do not agree that the rubble reaps from the piles were enormous. Look for yourself:
A very good point has been made - repeatedly - by defenders of the conventionally accepted account of 9/11.
The point is this: the size, scale and audacity of the event were such that someone involved would have to have come forward by now, as a whistle-blower.
This point, however, rests upon the assumption that those involved considered the 9/11 attacks to be morally wrong.
However, it is reasonable to think that those who did it, did it in Our Best Interest, which is to say, for the good of the country. People in currently in power really do think this way.
Not to mention the fact that 9/11 made a few people very rich (defense contractors, oil companies) and had the effect of consolidating power in the Cheney/Bush administration.
Still, I am optimistic and patriotic, and I think that a government of/by/for the people will ultimately win out.
explanation granted wrote:
A very good point has been made - repeatedly - by defenders of the conventionally accepted account of 9/11.
The point is this: the size, scale and audacity of the event were such that someone involved would have to have come forward by now, as a whistle-blower.
This point, however, rests upon the assumption that those involved considered the 9/11 attacks to be morally wrong.
However, it is reasonable to think that those who did it, did it in Our Best Interest, which is to say, for the good of the country. People in currently in power really do think this way.
Not to mention the fact that 9/11 made a few people very rich (defense contractors, oil companies) and had the effect of consolidating power in the Cheney/Bush administration.
Still, I am optimistic and patriotic, and I think that a government of/by/for the people will ultimately win out.
Great post! But for the government to say it was in our best interest they WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT THEY DID IT! And of course all the people who say that the "Muslims did it" would have to admit they WERE WRONG! I can't wait for that day!
bomb goes off at 14:55...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tgQ75GxAZk
The last 3 minutes of this video says it all.
Scumhawk wrote:
Pete Carroll is a moron and sleezebag. He ran a crooked program at USC and then baled when he got caught.
He is not a moron.
building 7, dudes
building 7
Apparently, he's a pretty good footballz coach. Wonder what he thinks about building 7?
If there is a conspiracy here it is that the government knew the attack would happen by a spy that had infiltrated the enemy. Sometimes you need to let disasters happen so information keeps coming in. We don't know what's really going on and we shouldn't. The world is a complicated place.
But a script or photoshop or whatever you all believe is so far out there. And you really think we didn't land on the moon? We have stuff on Mars!
