Charlie Sheen's 911 Video/Message to Obama~

[Hippie3]

Originally Posted by Ras Asad

...
that is all thats really being done here,
asking for a proper investigation...

by 'proper investigation'
you must mean one that
arrives at the conclusions
you already have leaped to.

9-11 has been exhaustively investigated
by numerous agencies , media, and experts
and no one can prove any treason.

Congress and the President under the democrats
would surely expose and destroy the republicans
if they only could,
but they cannot.

[wildburr]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

by 'proper investigation'
you must mean one that
arrives at the conclusions
you already have leaped to.
9-11 has been exhaustively investigated
by numerous agencies , media, and experts
and no one can prove any treason.
Congress and the President under the democrats
would surely expose and destroy the republicans
if they only could,
but they cannot.

That seems to be what everyone screaming for a new investigation wants, someone to agree with their conclusions.

[Doctor D]

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

Where's bin Laden? He could sure help us all out by turning himself in and explaining a few things. It shouldn't be too hard to find a 6' 6" Saudi who is on dialysis in the mountains of Pakistan or wherever.

I think he's dead. He hasn't had a new video of himself published in years - only audio tapes and old video footage released as "new" material when it is obviously old footage. For some reason, the CIA doesn't seem to want to admit this. There must be a reason why they want to perpetuate the myth of this boogeyman. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume their motives for this are good intentioned. Stupid of me, I know.

My contribution to the Twilight Zone.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Bin Laden released an audio recording on Jan 14, 2009. He speaks about the current events in Gaza. I'm pretty sure there was another one more recent than the Jan 14 tape, but I don't feel like doing the research.

He released one last May that discussed the Israeli blockade of Gaza - it also included a couple of specific references to current events (at the time).

I believe that if they were spliced recordings, the government would jump all over proving and reporting it. Bin Laden dead would be a huge coup, but more important, it would be a blow to morale for the extremists.

Every day bin Laden is alive is a propaganda win for extremists and terrorists everywhere. Lots of home grown separatists and militia groups - who hate Islam and muslims - love the fact that the government has failed to capture or kill bin Laden.

The whole, "what exactly constitutes a proper investigation" question is one I often wonder about. It really seems there are some people who could be part of a proper investigation team and still not accept it's findings.

[Doctor D]

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

Bin Laden released an audio recording on Jan 14, 2009. He speaks about the current events in Gaza. I'm pretty sure there was another one more recent than the Jan 14 tape, but I don't feel like doing the research.

That's what I said... only audio recordings. There hasn't been a credible new video of him in years. Depending upon who is releasing the audio tapes, they can be faked. And, how is the speaker recognition on his voice being done? Are they comparing his voice to other recent audio recordings, which may have been recorded by the same imposter? Or are they comparing his voice to audio recordings made in the 90's, when he was most certainly alive?

The Daily Mail just recently released an article on some of the inconsistencies about bin Laden's recent appearances. What it suggests is scary - that basically bin Ladin was a red herring all along. Not sure if I'm ready to go that far. However, it wouldn't be the first time that a government has been implicated in orchestrating a mass conspiracy in preclude to war. There is some scary evidence that Russia's FSB was involved in the 1999 Russian_apartment_bombings that were the impetus to the Second Chechen War. There are some significant differences between the Russian government and our own, and it is those differences that make me unlikely to believe that the U.S. government would be capable of such a feat. Still, it makes me shudder to consider the possibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ar-terror.html

[Hippie3]

interesting that the cited expert is not a scientist but instead is a theologian.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Those tapes get run through voice print computers at the CIA and NSA. Voice print technology is incredibly advanced and extremely accurate.

What do you mean by bin Laden being a red herring? He fought with the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Bin Laden was a well known name in the Middle East long before we ever heard of him. He has been a radical fundamental Islamist for many decades.

[Doctor D]

Hippie - I do not find it unlikely that it would be a theologian who would be an authority on Osama Bin Laden. It would be a theologian who would be able to point out the religious significance of a follower of a strict Muslim sect doing things inconsistent with his religion.

Bucky, regarding the red herring:

Up until December 13, 2001, OBL had released four statements since 9/11, disavowing any responsibility for the attack. On this date, the U.S. government released a video showing OBL taking full responsibility for this attack. There are inconsistencies in this video which cause some people to believe the man in the picture is NOT Osama Bin Laden.

* His nose appears thicker than in previous recordings of OBL.
* He looks healthy - not like a man on dialysis (I know several people on dialysis at the moment. They all look like HELL.)
* In one video, he wears a golden ring on his right hand, something prohibited by the strict Wahhabi faith.

This one video is the "smoking gun" which proves that Osama bin Laden was behind the terror attacks. The CIA said it was real. The IDIAP in Switzerland ran it through their own state-of-the-art biometric software, which indicated that there was a 55-60 percent chance that the voice was that of an imposter.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2003-02/graphing-voice-terror

If this one video is fake, the whole Osama bin Laden deck of cards comes falling down.

Regarding audio forensics, it is not an exact science. The poor quality of the audio recordings would make it easier to trigger false positives. A son of Osama (like the Saad bin Laden killed in Pakistan a few months ago) could also give a similar voice print. And if there is anyone on this planet that could fake a voiceprint, it would most certainly be the NSA.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=290

The audio spectrogram or “voice print” is sometimes compared to the fingerprint as a unique identifier for a voice. This is how an examiner can identify a voice in order to give odds that a voice is Osama Bin Laden’s. You notice I say “give odds” not prove. Voice print analysis is a tricky art as well as a science and is not accepted in many states as evidence.

More importantly, where are these voiceprint analyses? I've never seen them - have you? When the CIA says they have studied the Osama Bin Laden voiceprints and deemed them to be authentic, how do we know this to be true?

A frustration for analyst Steve Cain is that the CIA says it has high confidence in its match, but never reveals the details.

Mr. CAIN: They don't publish their findings. They never show you any hard evidence as to what words match or did not match, in the, this recent bin Laden communication.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5164599&ps=rs

[TVCasualty]

I always thought bin Laden resembled Emmanuel Goldstein from 1984. When I went to the wiki page about Goldstein, my suspicions were not dispelled.

I doctored up this description of Goldstein's role in the book with what I think are some interesting parallels. Also, the idea of a boogeyman-du-jour named "Osama bin Goldstein" was kind of funny.

In the novel, [Osama bin] Goldstein is rumored to be a former top member of the ruling (and sole) Party [Mujahadeen commander allied w/ U.S. interests/CIA] who had broken away early in the movement and started an organization known as "The Brotherhood" [al Qaeda] dedicated to the fall of The Party [biting the hand that fed him, but keeping The Party in power at the same time by being a worthy enemy]. The novel raises but leaves unanswered the questions of whether [Osama bin] Goldstein, "The Brotherhood" [al Qaeda] or even "Big Brother" [Homeland Security] really exist.


(Winston) "Does the Brotherhood exist?"

(O'Brien) "That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind."

Some things never change, I guess. Oceania is still at war with Eastasia, and always will be.

[tenjin]

So whats up with Bush saying he saw the 1st plane hit the 1st tower? No one saw it because there was no media coverage filming it because it was a surprise. Only a amateur caught it on film and it supposedly surfaced on 9/12. He actually says "the 1st building" in the audio interview and in the video interview he sounds like he is describing the first attack. He probably saw it on CCTV or satellite stream, which kind of allures to the fact that the cameras where arranged in position to record the first strike. Just a thought, it seems it would be pretty easy to get a 747 to hit a building through the use of remote control integrated into the computer aviation controls, where the pilot would be trying to gain control of the plane but it would be flying itself and all communications cut off.

[Doctor D]

Tenjin, that is easily explained as a politician embellishing his story. Much like how Hillary Clinton recalls being under attack as she exits a helicopter in Bosnia, when that didn't actually happen. People have imperfect memories; politicians are no different.

[Doctor D]

I was hoping someone would refute the whole notion that Bin Laden is dead, but since no one has yet, I'll do my best. I am not a 9/11 "truther", I am a person who has up until very recently accepted the entire party line on September 11th and Osama Bin Laden. I'm looking into it as best I can to find evidence to the contrary, and finding very little.

The "ring" thing - there are other legit videos of Bin Laden wearing rings on his right hand, so that can't be counted as evidence. However, the nose. Will someone explain to me how a bad video recording can make a person's nose change shape?



These two still pictures show different people. And when you start looking at the later OBL videos, it only gets worse.

Edit: Here we go, someone who refutes the idea that these are two different bin Ladens.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Confession_video

[whatchamacallit]

I have seen people on dialysis swell up and get a fatter face and body, but not sure how much that is at play here.

[Hippie3]

maybe his nose was broken, perhaps during Allied bombing of Tora Bora.
or maybe he opted for plastic surgery to alter his appearance.

[BuckarooBanzai]

As evidenced by the on-going videos released, he is clearly vain enough to be changing the amount of gray in his beard.

[jimbojones]

So nobody thinks it is weird that Ol' Dick C. the pupet master was in control of NORAD during the attacks, or that he ordered the rubble "recycled" before any real forensic investigation could tak place? Or that there was no plane wreck of United 93 or outside the pentagon and not a single security camera caught the incident? Well they may have caught it the FBI just confiscated all the tapes, so we will never know. The whole defense of "Don't question it or you are unpatriotic and hate the victims" is exaclty what Fox new and Evilcorp used to silence those who asked intelligent questions. Stop being such puppets, to truly let those victims rest in peace we need to get to the bottom of this thing. Instead of doing that we possied up and invaded an oil rich nation (with a dictator we put in power) under the guise of "Gettin' those bad guys". The bad guys were in the White House. KBR, Haliburton, it all stinks of insider good 'ol boy Nixon polotics.

And as far as Obama unearthing the "truth" about 911, at this juncture the truth would destroy an already divided America. We have enough Bush problems to fix without re-opening up our biggest wound, just yet.

[jimbojones]

Originally Posted by tenjin

So whats up with Bush saying he saw the 1st plane hit the 1st tower? No one saw it because there was no media coverage filming it because it was a surprise. Only a amateur caught it on film and it supposedly surfaced on 9/12. He actually says "the 1st building" in the audio interview and in the video interview he sounds like he is describing the first attack. He probably saw it on CCTV or satellite stream, which kind of allures to the fact that the cameras where arranged in position to record the first strike. Just a thought, it seems it would be pretty easy to get a 747 to hit a building through the use of remote control integrated into the computer aviation controls, where the pilot would be trying to gain control of the plane but it would be flying itself and all communications cut off.

I like how Bush turns the Sept 11th attacks into a humorous little comedy bit about his brother. Classy guy, really a caring individual, you can tell the attack really chocked him up. Fucking scumbag.

[jimbojones]

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

The problem I have with the 9/11 conspiracy theories (and government conspiracy theories in general) is they all require a cabal of very high level, very intelligent conspiracists pulling the strings. Those theories also require an army of ground level folks to actually get things done.

We are talking about the US federal government and intelligence agencies. The same people who have yet to find Osama bin Laden. The same people who all by destroyed Colin Powell by being wrong about massive volumes of WMDs in Iraq.

It defies my imagination to believe they pulled off this massive false flag attack against America (in utter secrecy) - but didn't think to plant a few WMDs in Iraq. These are NOT bright people we are talking about.

I find the concept of them having run a giant conspiracy to be so bizarre as to be completely laughable.

As far as planting WMDS in Iraq, there was no need. Once we invaded the country mission accomplished. Who cares if the inel was "wrong" and some fall guys lose their job for "incompetence". KBR, Haliburton and the oil industry already have what they want. The WMDs were a ruse. I thought this was all conspiracy bullshit as well at first but as time goes by it seems more and more calculated. And can anyone explain the support structures being severed at perfect demolition angles with thermite (an American produced thermite residue showed up all over the place in the dust by the way). But since all the evidence has been systematically destroyed, and keep in mind this was done in the days following the attack under orders of the Big Dick, that will likely be impossible. How can you not question the largest attack on US soild and back it up with a Popular Mechanics rundown.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I guess what it really boils down to (in my opinion) is that if Dick Cheney really had the kind of power some credit him with...you wouldn't know his name. I believe Dick Cheney is just another run of the mill ruthless greedy bastard. Not so different than Randolph Hearst, Andrew Carnegie or Donald Trump.

If there really is a shadow cabal of controlling persons pulling the strings behind everything...if it really is all just one big conspiracy to control and manipulate humanity as a whole for thousands of years...

If that is the case, I don't think a one of us here would have the foggiest clue who the string pullers were. Being out in front of the cameras - being known - would be not only counterproductive to their goals, it would be boring to them.

[Hippie3]

Stop being such puppets

the next fucking loonie
who calls us 'puppets' or 'sheeple', etc.
because we don't buy into their bizarro-world view
will be hitting the highway for being rude and insulting.

[Jawn]

The whole defense of "Don't question it or you are unpatriotic and hate the victims" is exaclty what Fox new and Evilcorp used to silence those who asked intelligent questions. Stop being such puppets, to truly let those victims rest in peace we need to get to the bottom of this thing.

And as far as Obama unearthing the "truth" about 911, at this juncture the truth would destroy an already divided America. We have enough Bush problems to fix without re-opening up our biggest wound, just yet.

You've got 3 equally opinionated and unsubstantiated conspiracies/theories you've fostered in your head that you're insulting other people for not going along with.

Your diatribe is insulting, and the way you paint any disagreement makes it difficult to post a kind-worded response.

Enjoy your delusions.

[tenjin]

Originally Posted by Doctor D

Tenjin, that is easily explained as a politician embellishing his story. Much like how Hillary Clinton recalls being under attack as she exits a helicopter in Bosnia, when that didn't actually happen. People have imperfect memories; politicians are no different.

Yep thats true Doc, was thinking the same thing. Politicians are known to play on a mash up of wording, exaggerate or embellish a story. Just thought it was weird he did it twice.

i also believe what TV said:

if we want to know more about what's going on, we'll follow the money and Henry Kissinger.

[gorilla]

a stronger investigation by an unbiased group would be very nice, if only to clear the name of the government. as i see it, very little conclusive evidence has been presented, and i think it would be nice. the 911 commission is too biased, imo.

the government (hopefully) was not behind the attacks, but there does seem to be a SHIT TON of evidence pointing to knowledge of the events prior to sept 11. even among members of our own government. and that is a bit unsettling. there is also evidence that certain members of said government profited immensely off of these attacks. that also hurts very deeply.

the only problem is, with all of the hoopla about our (bullshit) economy, i doubt they will allow such a large amount of money to be publicly used at this particular time.

[jimbojones]

No shadow cabalistic organizations, just a club of greedy bastards with a muppet fall guy (GW) at the helm and licence to to whatever they want.

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

I guess what it really boils down to (in my opinion) is that if Dick Cheney really had the kind of power some credit him with...you wouldn't know his name. I believe Dick Cheney is just another run of the mill ruthless greedy bastard. Not so different than Randolph Hearst, Andrew Carnegie or Donald Trump.

If there really is a shadow cabal of controlling persons pulling the strings behind everything...if it really is all just one big conspiracy to control and manipulate humanity as a whole for thousands of years...

If that is the case, I don't think a one of us here would have the foggiest clue who the string pullers were. Being out in front of the cameras - being known - would be not only counterproductive to their goals, it would be boring to them.

[jimbojones]

I like that most of us here can have intelligent yet impassioned discourse, completely unrelated to boomers and for the most part get along and be civil.

[Ras Asad]

lol

yep, nothing to see here
move along
everything really is as it seems.

sorry for spreading more "fantasy, CT shit"
because.. what a beautiful, wonderful fantasy it is!
i love to focus on completely false, negative shit just for the sake of the great energy it provides. :thumbsup:

[BuckarooBanzai]

Life is a fantasy, man.

We spin the illusions wherein we find comfort enough to get to sleep at night...

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

Life is a fantasy, man.

We spin the illusions wherein we find comfort enough to get to sleep at night...

How did so many of us (and I've been counted among this "us" occasionally) get to the point where we began to spin illusions that made us feel less comfortable and made a good night's sleep hard to come by?

I sort of understand the mechanisms whereby we 'noid ourselves out; the big question in this context (to me at least) is how this strange state of affairs originated. That is, how is it that domesticated primates can be convinced to freak themselves out? Why do our minds go along with it, and not reject the self-infliction of damaging thoughts outright?

Sometimes it's hard to decide which voice in my head to listen to!

[BuckarooBanzai]

I don't really know, man, but I blame the lizards.

I think it comes from those same primitive limbic systems that kick in when you hear a strange noise in the dark.

The frontal cortex has come light years since we were crawling around on all fours. We can conceptualize things with an amazing degree of complexity when relaxed and in a contemplative mood.

But the neocortex is still mostly just a stimulus/response machine that just wants to know if it should run or attack - and that lizard part controls our emotions.

Once the emotions get stirred up and the adrenaline starts to flow, logic gets tossed out the window and those limbic processing systems take over like jackbooted storm troopers. In the neocortex the bigger and scarier a threat is, the easier it is to process.

It is systemically easier to be scared than it is to try and analyze the how/what/where that is causing the fear. Back in the days when those strange noises in the dark sometimes meant a predator, the people that stopped to analyze how/what/where tended to get eaten. The ones who surrendered to the fear and ran immediately survived to reproduce.

We need a few more thousand years of evolution...

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

I don't really know, man, but I blame the lizards.

I think it comes from those same primitive limbic systems that kick in when you hear a strange noise in the dark.

Well that makes a whole lot of sense. It's an angle I hadn't considered, and I think you're probably right.

The frontal cortex has come light years since we were crawling around on all fours.

Well, mine hasn't come very far at all since last weekend.

We can conceptualize things with an amazing degree of complexity when relaxed and in a contemplative mood.

But the neocortex is still mostly just a stimulus/response machine that just wants to know if it should run or attack - and that lizard part controls our emotions.

Once the emotions get stirred up and the adrenaline starts to flow, logic gets tossed out the window and those limbic processing systems take over like jackbooted storm troopers. In the neocortex the bigger and scarier a threat is, the easier it is to process.

It is systemically easier to be scared than it is to try and analyze the how/what/where that is causing the fear. Back in the days when those strange noises in the dark sometimes meant a predator, the people that stopped to analyze how/what/where tended to get eaten. The ones who surrendered to the fear and ran immediately survived to reproduce.

We need a few more thousand years of evolution...

Or lots more mushrooms and ayahuasca. Perhaps our neocortex is having trouble processing electronic media as well since it's unable to discern between real and fantasy images seen by the eyes (why horror movies actually scare people). So, in the case of a horror movie the monster suddenly jumps out of the shadows and our limbic system freaks and sends the adrenaline pumping, but then our slower neocortex reevaluates the threat and cancels the alarm (so we're capable of sitting there and continuing to 'enjoy' the movie even as our reptile brains are screaming "Grave threat detected! Fight or Flee!").

My thought was that maybe this can happen in reverse; our neocortex, or perhaps our entire cerebral cortex may be creating our own endogenous horror movies that we somehow end up showing to our reptile brains over and over. That might be why paranoia is more stressful to our minds than having an angry dog charge us; the dog lays out our choices for us very clearly: Fight it or run from it; we're empowered in our ability to make that choice. Paranoia generated from within can't be fought or fled from, so we effectively pin ourselves to the mat with it.

Still, what we're paranoid about might or might not be a genuine threat (that's a different issue) but it's clear that paranoia in and of itself is harmful and best avoided though it's not to say that somebody ain't out to get ya.

[BuckarooBanzai]

“Jump out at you” horror flick scares are the easiest to provoke but also the quickest to get past. The guy leaping out of the closet unexpectedly triggers a strong neocortex surprise response. The adrenaline dumps into your blood stream and starts you freaking out…but the frontal cortex retakes control within a matter of a few instants. You might throw soda when your arm jerks, but you are unlikely to get up out of the chair and start running.

Psychologically disturbing horror films, stories that appeal to the frontal cortex logic centers, may not be quite as “jumpy” scary – but the dread and fear stays with you long after you have left the theatre. The frontal cortex keeps feeding those frightening images and concepts back into the neocortex. Every time you think about the situation that frightened you in the film – it scares you all over again.

Post Traumatic Stress syndrome is, roughly speaking, an inability to stop thinking about a particularly harrowing experience. Your frontal cortex keeps replaying the bad memories and the neocortex jumps into fight/flight mode every time. In particularly severe episodes of PTS, a person will actually have immersive “flashbacks” wherein they see/hear/smell the traumatic situation as though it is actually occurring again. These on-going experiences can be nightmarishly intense for some people - far more damaging than the primary trauma they can’t forget.

Paranoia is like a feedback loop. The cortex decides there is something to be frightened of, the neocortex responds and jacks the system up, this makes the cortex even more certain there is a problem and the neocortex responds more forcefully. If something isn’t done to break the loop, paranoia can drive one to do some very crazy things.

[AmBe]

not the first time bombs were mistakingly? reported to be inside a building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrE...ayer_embedded#

[Phx]

Originally Posted by Irishlion

Obviously, you have never seen JP 8 burn huh or JP4 for that matter, JP incase you didn't know means is Jet Petroleum 8 of course the grade at to which its refined. It burns at a temp of upwards of 2000F, steel melts at 2500°F its stress point at a which it becomes red hot is 1400f - 2200f depending on grade of the structural steel used so that means it will bend at 1400f with a certain amount of force without breaking, steel with MASSIVE amounts of weight on it won't bend it will straight fold or compress or quite literally tear.

Analysis of the stell used in the world trade centers
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3.pdf

Now lets just say for instance, you take a small 12 inch I-beam 20 feet long and we heat the beam in the center to even 1000 F with a weight of 5000 pounds, What will happen to the beam. First its gonna bend then once the stress tolerance has been reached it will what BREAK or FOLD, now imagine that same beam with the same weight on it heated to 1500 F it will fold and bend considerablly quicker, now lets talk about a 24 inch H beam, Lots higher stress quality and its gonna be stronger, unless of course you heat it, wow Imagine that heats weakens steel, no of course not steel won't weaken under heat, it won't collapse under massive amounts of weights like CONCRETE while being heated, hell no!!!!!! THE goverment had to plant a bomb in it to weaken the stell, COME FUCKING ON, DAMN, so u telling me that a fucking 747 crashing into a building FULL of JP8 or even JP4 for that matter, damaging the stucture considerablly by the sheer force of the crash, then the resulting fire heating the steel, then the weight lets guess here OH 200,000 Tons of concrete and more steel on top of that, won't make it fail, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? COME ON, DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH before you go running off the mouth about some idiotic conspiracy theory, DAMN MAN.

Gravity does play a factor here, Steel once heated looses it temper, UMMM WHATS TEMPER, well if your spouting off the mouth about this type of shit and you don't know I am not going to tell you. Look it up.

SO now lets think logically here for a minute, Steel beams get weakened severely from a 747 crashing into them, then the resulting fire from that trama, helps to reduce the temper of the steel, then the fact that we have gravity on this plant meaning everything is drawn down or toward the surface of the planet, also there was about 200,000 tons of concrete and steel above that, so the beams collapse or snap (now remember that cold steel will break alot quicker than it will if its hot), resulting in a massive impact of said weight onto the floor below it, creating more downard force, smashing into the floor below it, then that creates more weight and more stress smashing into the floor below it each, Force and weight multiplying exponentially as it falls onto the floor below it, exceding each floors maxium stress point leading to collaspe of that floor, that floors debris adding to the weight of the debris of the floors above it, crushing the next floor, each reaction becoming quicker and exponentially multiplying in downward force and weight until it reaches the surface.

So before ya start spouing off riduclious conspiricy theroies about 911, ya might wanna think logically for a second, and remember that even steel will bend and break at the right stress and temps.

Ok I understand most of what your saying here Irish....and your right about the heat being hot enough to melt the steal. But there is no way in hell that the melted steel on the upper floors would run all the way into the basement where it would melt through "I" beams in a perfect diagonal cut!

Yes metal could melt, and bend but it would cool way down before it reached the basements where there where testemonies from officials on ground zero of the glowing hot "I" beams that still had molted metal on the structural "I" beams that where shown to be cut in a perfect diagonal cut....

so my question is how would this occur?

I'm not saying believe everything out there, I'm just asking to look deeper into the truths, then just the front page of the paper of this terrible tragedy. There is plenty the government does not want us to ever find out....this is just one of those things.

And a few sources have came out with video footage showing how and when some of these hijackers left the country?....Although I have not looked into it further personally, but if that is the case....then this discussion in itself falls apart completely....

I think anyone willing to try to put some of there time and effort into this subject....no matter what side of the fence you stand....would find that there is weak points on both sides of the fence.

Sorry for ranting and raving I was just putting in my .02 I guess....

sorry carry on!

[Hippie3]

why would it cool off as it fell ?
took a few seconds for the top floor
to hit the ground,
not long enough for any significant cooling .

every analysis i see from the
tinfoil hat crowd
ignores the thermal effect of a high energy impact.

that thermal energy is E=MVV
energy is equal to
the mass of the plane, fuel, baggage, etc.
times its airspeed
then times its airspeed again [squared].

all that energy has to go into the building,
and since the plane was too fragile to remain intact
[retaining energy in kinetic form by blowing thru]
the vast majority of that energy instantly became heat.

heat expands.
this is your 'explosion'.
the same thing happens when any high energy impact occurs.
no conspiracy , physics.

remove foil helmets now plz.

[sticky.mycelium]

i like the way my foil helmet accents my shirt though..

[BuckarooBanzai]

That collapsing building would, just in collapsing, generate a vast amount of heat.

Far from cooling, the falling mass of the building would have heated significantly as the concrete floors absorbed the compressive force of those above them.

[TVCasualty]

What bugged me was that the central core superstructure of the trade center was not struck in either tower. The planes hit obtusely and a vast amount of that kinetic energy -and jet fuel- went right on out the other side (making the big fireballs that were seen outside the building at impact).

And E=mc^2 doesn't refer to thermal transfer of kinetic energy so wouldn't apply here (otherwise, according to that formula the amount of energy released would've vaporized all of Manhattan and I don't think the energy contained in the nuclear bonds of the molecules involved in the impact and fire need be considered since that energy was never released).


Now, the superstructure of the towers is impressive to say the least:

The core –a combined steel and concrete structure– of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.

Viscoelastic dampers?? So it had shock absorbers too? Hmmm...

And this is interesting:

The tube frame design using steel core and perimeter columns protected with sprayed-on fire resistant material created a relatively lightweight structure that would sway more in response to the wind compared to traditional structures such as the Empire State Building that have thick, heavy masonry for fireproofing of steel structural elements.

And the fire resistant stuff does work, apparently:

On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment. Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower.

So in 1975 the core had been subjected to a fire that included 6 floors and was way down on the 9th to the 14th floors, meaning a tremendous amount of mass was sitting on top of the columns that were subjected to the fire. Apparently they were not weakened at all as the building was not condemned afterwards.

The only difference on 9/11 was the initial high-speed impact, but much of that inertia and most of the jet fuel went right on out like a bullet through a body, except this body has an internally reinforced high-mass fireproofed steel core complete with viscoelastic shock absorbers.

The same office supplies, desks, carpet, and associated crap burned on 9/11 that burned on 2/13/75, and yet the 9/11 fire brought both buildings down? The failures weren't due to impact since they obviously stood for a few hours after being hit, so therefore the explanation was weaking of the structure due to fire. But even if that were true, when the building collapsed the part above the weakened members should've fallen off to one side (I would guess toward the hole made by the plane). But instead what we are asked to accept is that a gigantic shock-absorbing metal spike crumbled to the ground. I have never seen metal 'crumble;' if I hammer a nail into cement (or bedrock!), it bends. If I heat up the top of it and try, the top falls off to the side and the rest bends.

I have seen controlled demolition videos of demos that went bad. After all the weeks of work and planning, the building still fell off to one side and screwed stuff up. To have two of the largest buildings on the planet both fall with perfection into their footprints due to a lateral impact near the top of each building is just not credible to me.

All info quoted above came from wikipedia.

[stonedcoder]

Taken from another thread - feels like it fits right here ...



...the truth shall set you free ! Problem is no one here will ever know the real truth about what happened on that day.

[ChimX]

I'm astounded at how civil threads on this site are. This is a sticky subject and it amazes me how well people can disagree, yet remain amicable. Regardless which side of the table one is on, it's a topic that brings a lot of pain, suffering and indignation, for both those who feel they know the truth and those who are still looking for it.

[firerat]

Originally Posted by ChimX

I'm astounded at how civil threads on this site are. This is a sticky subject and it amazes me how well people can disagree, yet remain amicable. Regardless which side of the table one is on, it's a topic that brings a lot of pain, suffering and indignation, for both those who feel they know the truth and those who are still looking for it.

Very well put new friend.

That whats wonderful about our 'Topia. We can have these types of discussions in a civil manner (for the most part), no matter how we differ in opinion.

BTW Welcome to the 'Topia!!

[Hippie3]

And E=mc^2 doesn't refer to thermal transfer of kinetic energy so wouldn't apply here (otherwise, according to that formula the amount of energy released would've vaporized all of Manhattan

simply incorrect.
you're thinking that c = speed of light
as per einstein's equation
but that was for full conversion of matter to energy-
in THIS CASE c = airspeed,
which was about 500 mph
not lightspeed of 186,000 mps.
the equation still holds true.
let me re-write it to clarify-
energy = mass times velocity squared.

so no point in replying to the rest
as your first assumption was
erroneous .

[TVCasualty]

Ah yes, I see where you wrote E=mcc but said "times velocity squared." Brain farted. It happens.

Originally Posted by Hippie3

so no point in replying to the rest
as your first assumption was
erroneous .

But however much energy was transferred, the majority of it still went out the exit hole and the building is still a shock-absorbing metal spike that we're supposed to believe crumbled. One little brain fart in my reply hardly negates the rest, and besides I was still basing the rest of my response on the conventional physics of energy transfer; I was not responding to the idea that you were using Einstein's equation to explain the events, I was just mentioning that I thought you'd written down his equation by mistake. I blew it there, but the rest of my reply is still valid.

[Hippie3]

the majority of it still went out the exit hole

on what basis do you make this claim, which i believe to be incorrect ?

[TVCasualty]

The news footage and the fact that the initial impact did not knock the top off or even knock it out of plumb. The impacts would've certainly altered the weight distribution of the floors that were struck (whether it pushed the mass out the window or even if it absorbed it all) and all the broken cantilevered trusses and connecting plates (those hit directly by the planes) changed the load-bearing characteristics of the superstructure, but only way up there near the top.

So, we have a very lopsided impact into each building that altered the structural integrity and weight distribution of a handful of floors up near the top, but they fell down as straight as a falling plumb bob. Twice.

[Hippie3]

the plane lacked the structural strength to penetrate as you envision,
instead what we saw was the explosive venting of vaporized aircraft/building debris
blowing out windows and walls.

just as when an impact on the moon occurs,
the vast majority of the mass of the plane was instantly converted into super-heated gases, along with nearby structure of the building.

the super-hot gases violently expand in mere milliseconds,
blowing debris, flame, etc. out
but still having the [more or less] same vector as the plane did

think of it as kind of like a plasma torch,
superhot gases blowing thru steel like melting butter.
it's very real,
unlike the hidden bombs hypothesized by conspiracy buffs.

by the way,
one can see examples of very similar 'pancake' collapsed buildings
after major earthquakes,
buildings do not topple over, as you might expect, like a tree falls.
instead they come pretty much straight down as each floor is collapsed
by the floors above it coming down onto them.


the speed of gravitational acceleration toward the ground
is far greater than the angular momentum transferred by any impact,
in 1 second the debris cloud is falling at 32 feet per second,
at 2 seconds it's already fallen 96 feet and is now moving at 64 feet per second.
etc.
at 3 seconds after the explosion the top floor has dropped nearly 200 feet and
is still accelerating , now moving nearly 200 feet per second.

it'd take roughly 5-6 seconds for the top floor of a 1000 foot tall building
to hit street level.
even if it were tipping over at the same time
you'd end up with a teardrop-shaped debris field
with the vast majority at the base of the original site.

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

by the way,
one can see examples of very similar 'pancake' collapsed buildings
after major earthquakes,
buildings do not topple over, as you might expect, like a tree falls.
instead they come pretty much straight down as each floor is collapsed
by the floors above it coming down onto them.

In those cases, it was the Earth that quaked, not the top section of the building. The force of an Earthquake is distributed evenly to the entire foundation of the building, not a discrete point off-center up near the top.

[Hippie3]

not exactly,
wiggle a long tubular object
and you'll see that the force increases with the distance.
wiggle a building,
and the top floors shake the hardest, move the most
and thus suffer a structural failure first.

[BuckarooBanzai]

And never forget those Viscoelastic Dampers were designed to keep (horizontal) wind sway to a minimum. The upper floors would not have rented for nearly as much if they had been swaying 2-3 feet back and forth during storms.

Those dampers actually contributed the collapse.

Their entire job was to translate horizontal sway into vertical pressure. When only the vertical pressure of structural collapse was applied, they acted to spread said pressure evenly across the structure, drastically increasing the probability of "pancake" structural failure.

[stonedcoder]

hip ...your wining me over to your side ...

(although i started from what i think was just a little right of neutral ) ...anyway i'm gettin what your saying about the planes effect on the buildings collapsing... there is just way too much other stuff happening on that day ...NATO fucking up, the parking lot footage from the pentagon crash - and the fact that in the crash at the pen ...there were no bodies, not luggage, no seats, nothing on the ground to identify the plane as a "plane" ...amongst a bunch of other little nagging irregularities.

anyway ...just some random thoughts - not really adding anything useful ... sorry i'll go back to sleep now.

[TVCasualty]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

not exactly,
wiggle a long tubular object
and you'll see that the force increases with the distance.
wiggle a building,
and the top floors shake the hardest, move the most
and thus suffer a structural failure first.

Well, an earthquake is an event with a frequency; the seismic waves that produce the rising and falling (or shifting back and forth, depending) transfer that energy to the building at a rate that is going to be much higher than the rate at which they will travel through the building. So, the bottom of the building will move to the left a few feet and then to the right a few feet several times before the initial shift to the left reaches the top of the building. Older buildings pancake in earthquakes because the various normally-vertical supporting members are being pushed off-plumb in different directions at the same time and weren't designed for it.

The towers suffered a single impact, not a high-frequency series of them as in an earthquake, so they only had to absorb the initial energy and sustain the reverberations up and down the building as that energy dissipated. It was designed to do just that.

Originally Posted by BuckarooBanzai

And never forget those Viscoelastic Dampers were designed to keep (horizontal) wind sway to a minimum. The upper floors would not have rented for nearly as much if they had been swaying 2-3 feet back and forth during storms.

Those dampers actually contributed the collapse.

Their entire job was to translate horizontal sway into vertical pressure. When only the vertical pressure of structural collapse was applied, they acted to spread said pressure evenly across the structure, drastically increasing the probability of "pancake" structural failure.

I forget the specifics, but I recall that the towers were supposedly built to withstand an aircraft impact (and of comparable size to the planes that struck them).

That leaves the question of what initially caused the top to begin collapsing in the first place. It bears repeating that the central superstructures of the towers were not hit by either plane so even if the fire was hot enough to weaken steel, it was burning well away from the central core and there were two massive holes in each building allowing heat to escape (like how firefighters chop holes in roofs to dissipate heat to prevent a flashover during a house fire).

If the off-center airplane impacts, the altered weight distribution due to the impacts, and the partially-destroyed dampers and connecting plates from the impacts and subsequent fires did in fact cause both towers fail to live up to their design and collapse, how the heck did both tops fall perfectly straight down, and not bounce off to one side? The inertia of the falling top section was initially small compared to the resistance it would meet from the base, so why no brief pause as it was overcome or vectoring of its fall?

The dampers may well have helped contain the fall to within its own footprint, but there is no conceivable way (to me) that such a perfect collapse could have been accomplished by chance, twice (and that's not to mention Building 7's "Immaculate Demolition;" WTF happened there?) If anything, the impacts were so high on the buildings because the demolition team may have only set charges on and near those floors to take advantage of just the phenomenon you described; it would take relatively few explosives or thermite or whatever that way. It may also explain why care was taken to not hit the superstructure in either case ("care" being implied by flying the planes at the upper limits of their tolerances which takes great skill), or why the impacts didn't happen one hour later (the death toll would've been an order of magnitude greater, which is what I thought was the terrorists' goal, but whatever).


And if y'all really want to see some freaky Puzzling Evidence, watch The Spy Factory, a documentary about the NSA that was on my favorite tinfoil-hat channel: PBS (it was a NOVA special). The strangest series of coincidences that may have ever happened in government history happened within the NSA around 9/11. Did you know that the only time in the history of the NSA that ALL their computers crashed at once (leaving them totally blind for five days!) was when the terrorists involved in the 9/11 plot were moving across the country in preparation for the final phase of the operation? What a lucky break for them! Or that an FBI agent working abroad who had figured out in early September that the terrorists not only had valid US Visas but had already entered the country was specifically ordered by a CIA commander to not report his discovery to his superiors? That's kind of odd, but lucky for the terrorists again. You can hear him tell the story himself in the NSA documentary (and there's so much more). PBS is getting a little more hard-hitting than it used to be...

Anyhow, I've never seen any of the information from PBS on any "truther" website or video, but watching that special along with The Trials of Henry Kissinger at around the same time is what tipped the balance for me in concluding that the attacks were either known about and deliberately not stopped or actually put together by elements within the US Gov't (tending toward the latter, using true-believer patsies). Kissinger had long ago perfected the art of orchestrating massive cover-ups for covert operations on a vast scale, plus he was the person who conceived of and initially occupied the very powerful (but never mentioned in the Constitution) position of National Security Adviser; if you're going to pull a 9/11 or an illegal bombing of Cambodia, you need the access that that peculiar position grants (or rather, the access Kissinger granted himself).