9/11 truth now!

what temperature does jet fuel burn at? 1500 degrees. did you notice the black smoke rolling out of the towers? that's a sign of a poorly burning, low temperature fire, ie incomplete combustion. much of the jet fuel burned up on impact and the fireballs are easily visible. at what temperature does steel melt? these are the first skyscrapers in history to fail due to fire. even the architects of the towers said they should not have fallen since they were designed to withstand a large plane's impact. did you see the video of people standing in the gaping holes left by the planes? how hot could they have been there? certainly not 2700 degrees steel-melting hot or 1500 degree jet fuel burning hot and probably not even 800 degree poorly-burning jet fuel hot. how can a building collapse at free-fall speed when each floor is hitting the one below on the way down? why aren't some of the core columns standing at the end of the pancake collapse. that's suspicious. why did the columns i saw look like they had been sheared off at 45 degrees with a relatively clean cut? what about the claims of explosions within the towers, before and during the collapse? Progressive or pancake collapse describes the process by which a structure destroys itself in a chain reaction of failures. The phenomenon can be demonstrated using loose elements, such as dominos or cards, but has not been demonstrated for structures where the elements are fastened to each other, except in terrorist incidents.

19 saudis, at least some of which are still alive. i find it suspicious that the authorities had their names and photos within a few days of 9/11. good investigating after the single largest intelligence failure in US history? 19 arabs armed with box cutters, take over 4 planes and the military stand down when they go off course (against standing policy), then they hit 75% of their targets. that sounds like the real conspiracy.

where are the terrorist videos? a link to an article stating there are videos won't substitute. i did hear about some israeli gents whooping it up after the towers were hit. right outside NYC. bin Laden stated he had nothing to do with the 9/11 events.

the point of my original post is this, if a crime has been committed then follow the money to find the perpetrators. this is basic police/detective theory and still hasn't been done nearly 8 years later.

 

I don't really think this matters, now. Some people trust the government to be basically decent and moral and as honest as it responsibly can be. That's the line they give us. And they say that whenever it appears not to be so, it's either because a handful of people did the wrong thing or because government in-fighting led to a result that no one really wanted. Others just don't believe what they see and hear on TV and they don't trust the government at all. What I find weird is that some of those people trust anonymous, completely unaccountable strangers on the internet.

If you don't trust the government, you should probably advocate some reforms...maybe some form of anarchy would be better. We have a democratic system, so you can advocate that and maybe bring people to your cause by discussing the virtues of an anarchic system (or whatever system you think would be trustworthy).

But trying to play gotcha with what you believe to be a huge, evil, incredibly capable and secretive cabal just makes no sense at all. Best to just leave the details of the past alone and work toward the future you want to create.

 

It's all so clear to me now...

 

No steel melted during this event.

 

What about the third building that fell? Where did the airplane go that hit the pentagon,also the one that crashed in the open field. No debris?? Just unanswered questions

 

Poor logic.
This is what is called call 'mix and match'. A point is made and then is stated that it proves something that it doesn't.

Blck smoke means inefficient burning. Check.
However inefficient burning occurring in no way prohibits efficient burning from also occurring.
There was a lot of burning going on. Some efficient and some not because there were a good deal of materials that can still burn or give off smoke regardless.
Conspiracy grasp at something that means nothing.

Also, fireballs upon impact in no way prohibits there from still being jet fuel to burn. Explosions can blast/spray liquids that do not have sufficient oxygen to burn or explode at the moment of impact because it is all used by the rest of the fuel that did immediately burn/explode.
There is nothing in the facts to imply the conclusions being drawn.
The facts are simply being stated with a conclusion attributed to them.
Mix and match.

Because when that much weight starts to move it doesn't slow dow.
It is inertia.
There is an impulse, a momentum transfer. The resistance that is made to hold the floor in place provides a counter force for a brief period of time. This decelerates the object.
The mass of the building is frikkin enormous. Enormous mass means enormous momentum.
Basically, the amount of lost momentum from crashing through a floor is so small compared to the total momentum of the falling onject that the speed change is imperceptible.

The following is a breakdown using differences rather than differentials...

P1 = initial momentum, before hitting the floor, V1 = initial velocity before hitting the floor.
P2 = final momentum, after hitting the floor, V2 = final velocity after hitting the floor.
P=MV momentum equals mass times velocity.

P1-P2=MV1-MV2 or P1-P2=M(V1-V2): The relation between the change in momentum and the change in velocity

(V1-V2)=(P1-P2)/M is the change in velocity

Dividing by a ridiculously frikkin huge number gives a value of basically zero. no discernable change in velocity.

Once it starts moving, not only is it not going to stop, nothing is even going to slow it down until it buries itself in the ground.

Why? Because it sounds good to say it is suspicious by arbitrarily ruling that some should be standing?
So, no. it is not suspiscious.

Because tensors will result in that. Shear forces occur. They will often radiate. Determining them requires high order tensor analysis but once breaks start they will often happen along a line.
What do you expect with that much power? Water can be used to cut steel. Don't be surprised when something of that magnitude shears something off at 45 degrees.

So, the fact that things sounded like explosions during the fall means something? Sounded like explosions as the supports began giving away for a ridiculously huge chunk of mass crashing through stuff. Duh.

When there is that much widespread fire there will always be sounds of explosions. The fire itself will cause some. The swaying of the buildings will cause those sounds in the joints as the supports are being ripped almost to the point of braking. Perfectly natural to happen.

It has been demonstrated in structures fastened together.
Here is a link:

3D Simulation of Concrete-Frame Collapse due to Dynamic Loading

These things have been studied with respect to earthquakes for some time now and it predated 9/11.

No. They are all dead.

I tell you what. Here is a link, one of many, to an article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

If you want the original video by bin laden, ask al jazeera to give it to you.

There are one hell of a lot of people out there where money is not the ultimate goal. Look at all the suicide bombers in Israel.

I am done with this nonsense.
Have fun talking to yourself.

 

Mind if I take a hot steamy DUMP in here!

 

Well, I thought I was done but this is pretty easy to take care of.

I am thinking that by the third building you are referring to bulding 7 , I think.
The original report releases did not have the cause of its fall but that was not because they couldn't figure it out. It was because they released the reports as fast as possible without taking the time to analyze building seven. Once they (the engineers doing the analysis) took the time, the facts said it collapsed as a result of the fire and crash just like the towers.

The plane buried itself in the Pentagon. Its wreckage was there. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

There was debris in Pennsylvania.
People argued that there wasn't because they were looking for a debris field. That happens when a plane comes in at a shallow arc because someone wants to safely land it but fails. It also happens in a midair explosion.
The Pennsylvania crash was a nose dive and the debris was limited to a very small area. It was there however.

No more unanswered questions.
Case closed.

Now I am done.

 

I was kinda going along until we hit these statements. I don't believe any of them.

 

Fair enough.

I should have bowed out because I was becoming snarky in my comments.

I extend my sincere apologies to the readers and posters for them.

Now I am bowing out.

 

Well, you obviously know your stuff about this.

I believe what Popper said--that no statement about reality can be ultimately proven true. Many can be proven false, though. And some can't be proven false, either. You've got, I assume from the reports, a pretty good idea about how it all happened. I'd say, based only on what I've read in this thread, that your idea seems much more likely to be true than the idea that the buildings were demolished by previously emplaced explosives.

But to say, "This is it. This is the answer and any other suggestion is wrong no matter what," is stretching a bit too far.

The idea that someone not an Arab Muslim extremist terrorist was behind the attacks of 9/11 just might not be practically falsifiable.

 

I give my thanks for that. I do not know how deserved it is but I will accept it nonetheless.

Exactly. It smacks of saying "there is no debate in this forum, I am going to tell you how it is." That is mainly what I offered my apology for.

Again, fair enough and thanks once again.

 

No, thank you, Gray Raven. I learned something from all you wrote.

 

Black smoke means insufficient burning?

Fail.

 

There are still plenty of unaswered questions. I don't understand why everyone focuses on the attack itself. What about the events that took place in the months and weeks prior to the event and immidiately thereafter. The insider trading, The Bin Laden family was aloud to leave on a private jet when all flights were grounded. The fact is, the Bin Laden/Bush connection goes all the way back to at least the early 80's, probably earlier. Osama's older brother was the biggest investor in George Bush's Oil company, Arbusto Energy. There are many more. So whatever it was that destroyed the buildings is kind of irrelevant to me at this point. The fact is they have lied and the truth must and will be discovered.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction

 

The whole point behind 9-11 was to demonize the Arabian Goyim (Moslems).

 

Fires cannot burn effectively unless they have plenty of fuel. There just wasn't enough fuel in those skyscrapers to keep the fires burning at "inferno" temperatures. Steel isn't fuel. Wood and paper and gasoline and kerosene are fuel. There was an abundance of steel in those skyscrapers, but there was only a very small amount of fuel present, relatively speaking. The thick black smoke that was seen billowing out of the towers on the morning of 9-11-01, was an indication of a weak fire, i.e. an oxygen-starved fire.

 

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsendoi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

 

go into the bathroom, take a crap.
stand up.
and thats ur answer floating in the toilet.