9/11 truth now!

i have not posted here for quite sometime, but i have been lurking here none the least. :lurk5:

this thread has run out of steam. everyone is just repeating themselves, and spinning their wheels.
:beatdeadhorse5:

i move that this thread be closed.
KILL! KILL! KILL!
:smash:

 

I move to ask you to move. Leave people alone, bro.

 

Some guy on "You Tube" came out with this really crappy video (see above). In the video, the narrator compares the events of 9-11 with a hypothetical scenario that's almost totally unrelated to it (that of a car hitting a school bus). This guy really seems to believe that a school bus is somehow the equivalent of a skyscraper ! He starts out by making derogatory comments about the people that he hates ("truthers"), and then he proceeds to make a complete a** out himself by coming out with a totally whacked-out theory of physics, a theory which holds that an object MUST crumble to the ground when it is hit by another object. The narrator doesn't even try to account for the myriad of variables which can occur, instead he just puts out his crackpot theory in conjunction with venom-spitting personal attacks.

THUMBS DOWN !

 

I really don't see how "metal fatigue" could have been the cause of such an enormous amount of devastation. Building 7 was totally and utterly destroyed, it was converted into a big pile of dust even though it was never hit by a plane. Bldg 7 was a fairly recent addition to the complex, but none of those buildings were really THAT old. The complex featured some of the newest skyscrapers in the city, since they were only approx. thirty (30) years old at the time of 9-11, which isn't really that old for a skyscraper. The Empire State Building (ESB) is much older, it even suffered from a collision with a large airplane back in the 1940s, so why aren't steps being taken to shut it down ?

The ESB is such an old building that it could easily be suffering from a severe case of "metal fatigue."

An apartment building in Manhattan was hit by a small airplane on 10-11-06, and yet the building wasn't totally and utterly destroyed. To keep things in proportion, the airplane was quite a bit smaller than a Boeing 767, but then again that apartment building was also quite a bit smaller than WTC 7.

I've seen pictures of that much-ballyhooed wing that was discovered on the grounds of the pentagon, too, but that, too, could have been "prop for a photo-op" just like those incredible passports that were pulled out of the rubble at "ground zero."

That wing could have been planted on the premises by underlings who were simply following orders. In the military, the top brass can do just about whatever they want, and the underlings had better go along or face the consequences.

 

How on earth did the Japanese ever come to know about the existence of the Manhattan Project ? MP was the single most top-secret of all military projects, so how on earth did the Japanese ever catch wind of it ? Did they have spies planted in the War Department ? And if so, how did they ever manage to conceal themselves and their obvious nationality ?

If the Japanese had no prior knowledge of the Manhattan Project, it can only mean that they would have been lacking in the motivation to engage in a nuclear arms race with the USA.

Your link doesn't prove anything. In fact it only serves to foreshadow the goings-on which led to the recent mass murder of Iraqis.

Let's not forget that the same exact pretext was used as a justification for carrying out a military invasion of Iraq.

Let's not forget that many volumes of disinformation (i.e. lies) were fabricated by the various intelligence agencies, in an effort to implicate Iraq as a nuclear threat.

How is this any different ?

 

How did writing/language spring up in various unconnected parts of the world? In any case, they didn't start in 1939 and stop in 1944.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Japanese%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20Program.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshio_Nishina

Like I said, do some research.

Like I said, do some research.

Remember it is really about nuclear weapons/technology, not a particular project.

Also remember the Japanese / German alliance.
If there wasn't Japanese spies there were definitely German spies.

 

Hypothetically, if you had a scoop of World Trade Center dust or debris, would you want it studied for explosive material or would you throw it away and just think up more insults?

 

If one were to spend more time looking for the truth as opposed to the truth about 9-11, then perhaps we could get somewhere. Reality supports the truth without prejudice or argument.

 

The truth ............................................................... or THE TRUTH!!! ?

 

No, only a crazy conspiracist would, there's no reason to. The real world works in searching down pragmatic answers, that's basically like saying "don't you want the police to waste time investigating a crime that never happened."

 

I have worked in construction for 10+ years. Granted I am not a steel worker, architect, or engineer but I ask you what are your credentials to assess the load bearing capacity of buildings and therefore the broken tops of them.

Photo believed to be a hat truss of a World Trade Center tower under construction.


The columns do look frail at the top but I still think the collapse looked unnatural. The tops disappear during the first few moments. there seems to be plenty of building mass material flying outward away from the building but if you hold a pen up to a clip of the fall like the nist guys, it just doesn't add up. We are told the weight of the building pile drove the whole structure to the ground. What is your opinion about the "crush up phase" if you would.

 

Yes only a madman would run a battery of tests on something if it would definitely answer an issue such as this.

People who let the government give them their truth are hilarious.

 

No sane person didn't see from off the bat what happened to the towers. This is the same reason we don't have a department section trying to investigate Israel as being responsible for 9/11, the ideas are not grounded in reality just because some people on the internet post facts that are endlessly proven false yet some people still actually believe them because they want to believe them, they refuse to accept obvious both common sense and physical evidence.

Almost as many Americans don't know the sun goes around the Earth as there are truthers. Should we set up an investigation to see if the Earth really goes around the sun?

 

I admit I do not have architectural training. Do you?

 

I have taken a structural engineering class.

I have worked with several industrial/commercial building contractors and demolition contractors on projects. None of them agree with or have any interest in any of the points that you are making.

 

Opinions? Is this right or is it a bad sketch because something had to be published in a timely manner after the attacks?

 

I have a degree in structural engineering and the collapse seems to make sense. The plane that hit lower on the second building fell first because it had more compression force on the failing steel beems. Once the collapse started the falling stucture has too much momentum. I think it was partly the fault of the engineers for not designing the building for a large aircraft collision. The steel beams had a protective fire coating, but that was damaged in the collision. It was a perfect senario for collapse. I can see why it's a candidate for conspiracy.

 

IMHO, I think the structrual intergity has nothing to do with the conspiracy. It's just trying to shift the blame...so you end up with crazy theories based on nothing but a desire to back-peddle the end result with a conspiracy.

 

The simplest point that any person with a basic knowledge of psychics or engineering can tell you is that steel does not need to be molten to lose its structural integrity, especially in a building of that size, yet this fact is just so conveniently looked over by the truthers who demand steel must be melting.