Nunya: Welp, done with this site again maybe in a couple more years you fuckwads will come to your senses.
Now I remember why I left in the first place.

Wow. You’re almost as obnoxious as Megiddo. And Webs, your avatar is cute. Just sayin’.

They planted demolition charges in all 3 buildings along with Thermite charges.

What, you’re still with us fuckwads?

So you say the buildings were covertly wired for demolition and the aircraft impacting the floors where the collapse started didn’t mess up the charges and their wiring? Let me guess, the sappers setting the chargeswere called to a meeting at the Pentagon?

Hot air travels upward, doesn’t it? I doubt the firefighters would have had that easy a time in the floors on top of the impact. And the heat is supposed to permeate floors? Infrared isn’t the same as xrays…

And so on and so on…

Thanks just dont tell my girlfriend you said that, I had a bad experience with an online friend and jealousy. 

They planted demolition charges in all 3 buildings along with Thermite charges.

Your evidence for this is what?

Common sense, Controlled demolition is the ONLY way a building can collapse at freefall speed, PERIOD.
The Thermite I believe because there are pictures of several steel columns that have been sheered cleanly, also the fact that there was molten steel in the wreckage for several weeks after.

Carbon based fires can not possibly create such heat, Thermite burns at over 5000deg.
Also Thermite leaves a tell tale residue and color change in steel that was observed at WTC.

What is your evidence that it didn’t?

SS, I’ve called Nunyabiz an atheist fundie in the past. He’s as much an embarrassment to atheists as this Coulter creature is to Christians.

Go fuck yourself Elwed you have been a complete ASSHOLE from day one and you still are.

Nunya continues…

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, yet collapsed at freefall speed even though only a few small fires burned on 3 floors.
The owner of the Building actually admitted the building was “pulled�?.

That would be Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for the building, the exact quote happens to be:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse. - Clip via Google Video.

According to Mr. Silverstein’s spokesperson he wasn’t referring to demolishing the building:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

The video of this happening shows very clearly squibs from demolition charges blowing out windows, it also shows the tell tale “kink�? in the middle of the building right before the collapse which is exactly what you see happen during Controlled demolition.

It does look similar to a controlled implosion, but that doesn’t prove it was a controlled implosion. What evidence other than “that’s what it looked like” do you have to offer? There’s always ample evidence left behind from a controlled demolition. Why has no one reported anything from the debris left behind that would imply the building was rigged for implosion? Contrary to the movies you can’t just slap some explosives on a girder without any preparation and expect a nice orderly implosion. It takes months of planning and weeks of setup to do properly.

You dont believe your lying eyes I guess, and I do

I suppose you believe Chris Angel really ripped that woman in two as well then, eh? If what you’ve seen with your own eyes is all the evidence you need then you’ve got a very low standard of proof.

then you claim all I have is supposition & assertions, yet that is EXACTLY what you are believing from the Government because that is all they got.
Thing is however their suppositions defy the laws of Physics & Gravity.

Who says I’m relying only on the reports from the government? There’s been a lot of independent studies done on the failure of these buildings particularly by schools with major engineering departments. Most folks tend to think there’s nothing about the events that defy physics or gravity.

OK Les show me your evidence, your hard 100% irrefutable evidence that the Government Conspiracy theory is correct.

Have at it convince me.

Obviously nothing I can say will have any effect on you, so YOU convince me that the Government conspiracy theory is correct.

Honestly, I don’t give a shit if you believe the government. You came here to convince us we were wrong. You’ve still not answered Elwed’s ridiculously simply question beyond a pathetically simplistic “with explosives” that doesn’t really explain how such a feat was carried out in total secret without anyone ever suspecting it and without leaving behind a single shred of evidence of it happening. You’re the one making the extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on you.

BTW the video of the floors blowing out 30+ floors under the collapse & that the building collapsed at freefall speed is proof enough for me that Explosives were used.

Only for someone who doesn’t realize that big buildings are mostly filled with air which, when compressed by floors falling on top of each other, will blow out windows well ahead of the collapse of that floor.

That is the ONLY way a building can collapse that quickly is to take out the structural support completely then evacuate all the air in between floors causing a vacuum, a few small fires obviously did not do this.

And you know this is the only way because… why?

I’d be more inclined to accept what you say if you had any background in the areas of demolition, structural engineering, and so on.

It doesn’t help, though, that both Popular Mechanics and Scientific American have had articles debunking many of the claims you’re throwing out here. That’s just two examples of such as well and, in all honesty, I’m inclined to believe the likes of SA over you, Nunya, if only because I’m pretty familiar with them and they’ve earned my trust.

The other main reason I have a hard time swallowing your conspiracy theory is the simple fact that the Bush Administration is stunningly incompetent at keeping anything secret. An operation on the scale you’re proposing would require a large team of expert level people working with full knowledge of what they were about to do and having no qualms about it for quite literally months to put all the pieces into place and it would all have to work flawlessly on the first try. Let alone the massive number of people that would need to be involved in the cover up after the event had taken place ranging from securing any evidence in the rubble that would indicate the planning involved to planing all the false evidence.

I simply find your alternative theory as to what happened ridiculously less probable that what the official theory happens to be.

Thermite also burns with an extremely white flame. How did they mask these flares? Soot alone doesn’t cut it.

Molten steel… Let me see - about 500.000 tons of structure collapsing within a couple of second. There’s probably enough energy to dissipate that melt a bit of steel here or there.

How does thermite explain a clean sheer of steel? Did the thermite melt it clean through? And I presume that you can list and explain away all other explanations?

And so on and so on…

Les,

It does look similar to a controlled implosion

The building was 95% air. Having the collapse look like an implosion is no big deal.

Nunya writes…

Common sense, Controlled demolition is the ONLY way a building can collapse at freefall speed, PERIOD.

Your version of Common Sense is not evidence, it’s that supposition and speculation I mentioned earlier. Simply because you believe this to be true doesn’t make it true.

Why has no one reported anything from the debris left behind that would imply the building was rigged for implosion?

Because the FBI removed all evidence from the scene not allowing anyone to have time to examine it.  All debris from the WTC was removed immediately.

Nunyabiz: Go fuck yourself Elwed you have been a complete ASSHOLE from day one and you still are.

Why, thank you! Coming from the likes of you, that’s high praise indeed. *blush*

All debris from the WTC was removed immediately.

I recall the cleanup taking weeks and months. So “they” knew where to find all incriminating evidence in the 500.000 tons of rubble (each?) and whisked it away within minutes? Or did they perform cavity searches on the workers to make sure nothing got smuggled out by a whistle-blower?

It is simply mind-boggling that anybody would credit the Bush administration with masterminding something that breathtakingly audacious and technically demanding.

For the amount of rubble created I would say it was fairly quickly yes.  And no where in the 9/11 commission report is it stated that the debris from the attack was examined, or that the steel was examined.  Why?

Or did they perform cavity searches on the workers to make sure nothing got smuggled out by a whistle-blower?

It was a dirty job, but I made $40 an hour, and some of those volunteers were cute.  Nudge, nudge, wink wink.

But regardless, if you watch the towers collapse, they look vaguely familiar to something…

Well, Nunya’s list of questions about 9/11 looks more than vaguely familiar: it looks just like the sort of questions asked by Holocaust deniers.

Sorry, Nunya, I hate the current Administration too, but they are not up to a job of this level of expertise, and there’s no evidence it didn’t happen more or less the way Wikipedia, Scientific American, and Popular Mechanics said it did.  Here’s another question for you: what about all the private video footage of the planes hitting the WTC?  All faked too?  Come on.

Yeah, I was a little disappointed Nunya didn’t call me an asshole too.  Hey Nunya, aren’t I an asshole?  Just a little?  Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to be satisfied with being a fuckwad.

I wouldn’t care about this except - it really helps the ‘powers that be’.  They can say: “Look how batshit our critics are!” And as someone mentioned, it does seem unlikely that the “helluva job” Bush administration could pull this off. 

(Don’t tell anyone, but I’m really a ‘tool’ of the Bush administration!  Shh!)

I could believe, and would entertain a suggestion, that they ‘let it happen’ in the sense that they didn’t follow up on the intelligence.  If anyone presents credible evidence to that effect.  But stating as fact that the building was planted with thermite and wired for destruction on the basis of eyewitness accounts (so reliable)… shrug.

I know I’m going to regret bringing this up, (due to the annoyance factor) but… think back to the videos of the falling buildings.  I watched them very, very carefully, and there were objects falling faster than the building or even the debris cloud.

How fast were those disconnected objects falling?  You can bet that each second, they were going 32 feet per second faster than the second before.  Yet the collapsing building wasn’t keeping up with them.  It was falling almost as fast but it, er, ‘fell behind’.

You get a slightly different curve with an accumulating mass such as in a pancake failure, but it travels at a high percentage of the ‘speed of gravity’.  As each floor is passed the significance of the floor below diminishes as far as the acceleration until it is very nearly that of a free-falling object. 

In the WTC each floor was pretty much hanging on the load-bearing components at the center and outer shell.  That connection was designed with a certain combination of dead load, live load, and dynamic loads in mind - for the building in normal use.  The dynamic loads of falling impact of the floors overhead was in a whole different order of magnitude so the best analogy would be a chop rather than a failure - milliseconds to each failure, not seconds.

There are one hell of a lot of structural engineers in the world.  You can bet each one of them watched those videos with intense interest.  Has anyone done research on the percentage of blokes in every profession who are out on the fringes?  Bet the percentage of engineers who think this was a demolition job would line up pretty well.

If anyone reading this is an explosive demolition professional, I’d like to know what they think about it.

Doesn’t matter though.  Like supporters of Intelligent Design, if you dismantle one argument, it’s a quick shift to “Oh yeah?  Well what about...?!”

Shit next time I get myself into one of these discussions I should be more prepared, my fingers are getting tired.

if you dismantle one argument, it’s a quick shift to “Oh yeah?  Well what about...?!�?

I tend to shift to another topic instead… check out this clip.  Art of Wushu

Shift to another topic - I second the motion!!!

Damn, that is a funny video

I’ve done quite a bit of research on the 9/11 attacks and associated conspiracy theories, and the best I can conclude is that the official story has many holes but is still the most comprehensive explination.  Here’s a good site for evaluating claims about the 9/11 attacks.

Here are some of the biggest outstanding problems I have with the official explination:

- Why did WTC7 collapse?  It was not directly hit by an airplane, no large debris from the collapses of WTC1&2 did noticeable damage to it, there were not any large fires in the building, and it was constructed in a fashion completely different from the main WTC buildings (in fact, it was not originally part of the WTC complex but was purchased later).  WTC7 was located across the street from the other WTC buildings, yet no other buildings across the street collapsed.

- Why did the WTC towers collapse in a linear fashion?  The towers were built with a core of four main steel and concrete pillars acting as the main load-bearing elements of the structure.  Both steel and concrete have high tensile and compaction strength in comparison to their shear and bend strengths.  From videos of the tower collapses, the cores collapsed linearly, meaning that they compacted rather than tipped over.  What caused this?

- Why were no engineering teams authorized to examine the rubble of the towers on-location?  The collapse of three skyscraper towers in an unusual fashion constitutes some of the worst engineering disasters in history, and the mechanics of the collapses are not well understood.  Studying the collapses would be invaluable for learning more about stress analysis of large towers, and could have large implications for the construction of future towers.  The debris from the tower collapse was rapidly removed from ground zero and only a small collection of debris was made available to engineers (off-site as well).

- Why has the FBI not released all the videos of the plane collisions?  It is known that there are at least two surveilance videos of the plane striking the Pentagon that were confiscated but have never been released.

These problems don’t refute the official explination, but they are very reasonable questions that the government should be pressured to answer.

and the best I can conclude is that the official story has many holes but is still the most comprehensive explination.

It would be much more worrying if the official story had absolutely no holes in it.

Webs sez: Shit next time I get myself into one of these discussions I should be more prepared, my fingers are getting tired.

Webs, I’d like to ask you a question regarding the Pentagon attack.  As I recall, not 15 minutes after the plane slammed into the building, there were 3 eyewitnesses on as many TV channels saying “I saw a plane flying low to the ground . . . it was knocking over light poles in the parking lot . . . then it crashed right into the Pentagon!” (yes, I’m paraphrasing.) The one eyewitness I remember the best was a black cab driver who described IN DETAIL what he had seen. His account was *riveting* because no one else seemed to know what had happened and what was going on.

Okay, here’s my question: why do you find it so hard to believe the accounts of eyewitnesses who were there at the scene?

Just askin’.  And stuff.

How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?

Ok we know he didn’t- either 1) he was confused and seeing the 2nd. 2) he was confused at watching recording or 3) it was a ‘Man of the People’ speech. (qv Tony Blair watching Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle)

8. Were surveillance satellites orbiting North American airspace on 9/11?

Because governments can us CCTV etc - ie ground based surveillance- satalites are for wher you can’t go.

9. Why were these four planes able to evade all radar? Even when the transponders are disconnected, a plane is still able to be located by its “skin�? on radar screens

Only if being painted.  Commercial flights are located by their transponder.  No one tracks them using Radar.

which leads to

1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD, which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.

Answer is a combination of the two above- why track internal flights.  If they were that serious then internal flights would have had decent security before.  The US public did not like the extra security brought in after- they were use to planes as buses or trains.  Even after 9/11 there were reports of lax security on internationalflights

Why did George H.W. Bush meet bin Laden’s brother on 9/11 in a meeting at the Ritz Carlton?

1st time I’ve seen that.  People such as Michael Moore, and the ‘usual suspects’ have not said that any meetings took place on 9/11.  I would expect them to be the first to raise the alarm.
It is well known the Bin Laden family were/are close to the Bush family for business purposes.  That is more about the corruption of the office though.  They have publically disowned Uncle Osama- he wants Saudi to be a theocracy, which means his relatives would likely lose their wealth, their power and their heads.

Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden’s relatives in Washington?

Ditto.

9/11 has been used to sell Iraq to the US public.  It was a welcome oppotunity, not a planned event.  If I was head of the CIA (or whoever sets up these excuses)and was told to manufacture a good reason to invade Iraq, this would not have been it. Too much to go wrong, too many US citizens need to be involved, defies KISS.

Better would be make sure coalition forces captured someone smuggling WMDs into Iraq. Easier to do, and you don’t have to sell the attack on your own country line, plus nice clear link to Saddam.  Al Queda is nothing to do with SH. Rumsfeld had to be restrained by advisers from going straight to Iraq, when all the evidence pointed AQ in afghanistan.  If you were going to make scapegoats, then why were they not Iraqis on board, instead of Saudis?

7. Why wasn’t the Pentagon defended?

It’s an office block, not a base.  At what point would someone think flying a plane into was a likely scenario?  No chance to get AA there and set up in the hour or so from 1st high jack

I used to think much of this following was very suspicious when I first read about it:

1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD, which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.
2. At precisely what time was NORAD notified of each plane being hijacked? What was their response?

3. Who determined from which bases the F-16s should be scrambled? Why were fighter jets scrambled from such distant bases such as Langley Base in Va. instead of Andrews Air Force Base, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon? Who were the pilots of these F-16s?

4. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification? What was their airspeed?

5. It is reported that there were two F-15s off the coast of Long Island while Flights 11 and 175 were in the air. If there were indeed fighters off Long Island, why weren’t they diverted to investigate Flights 11 and 175? Were any other military planes flying routine missions on the morning of September 11th which could have responded?

6. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks? Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, immediately rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

But that was before Hurricane Katrina and how it was handled by the same administration. Now it doesn’t seem unusual at all.

But that was before Hurricane Katrina and how it was handled by the same administration.

To state the obvious, many of these questions also assume that everybody even tangentially involved should have jumped to the conclusion that the unthinkable was happening. Many also assume perfect foreknowledge.

Take one example:

3. Who determined from which bases the F-16s should be scrambled? Why were fighter jets scrambled from such distant bases such as Langley Base in Va. instead of Andrews Air Force Base, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon?

Unless you are a conspiracy nut, only the hijackers knew what they intended to do and where the planes were headed. Lacking that foreknowledge, but getting worried about perhaps multiple hijackings in progress, you’d get a few interceptors in the air from an air base deemed close enough.

You might as well ask why nobody launched missiles at the hijacked planes as soon as they veered off course.

For all that these questions mirror Christian apologetic thinking, I think these questions are worth picking apart and added to the WEB wiki.