9/11 nice, big and convincing document

[Determinado]

http://www.seattle911visibilityproject.org/rwtcpdf.pdf

What do you guys think? I'm especially intrigued by chapter 1.2.4 sliced steel.
It's just so clear and convincing!

Also before flaming me, I of course recognize the fact that many lives were lost in the 9/11 tragedy. However discussing about the people truely responsible for the attacks doesn't mean I question the tragedy, and cannot bring back the people who were lost that day, unfortunately.

The no-planes theory is very harsh for people that had relatives in the planes, but as it seems no one actually had relatives on those planes. There is great mystery about the planes and there's stories about people who heard the flight was cancelled, or that the planes were actually still on the airport when they appeared to have crashed into the WTC.

In any case, any discussion in this thread is certainly not aimed at hurting people who lost relatives or friends that day. The search for truth is more aiming towards helping to make this never happen again and reveal the true setup, whatever theory it confirms.

[Bloodangel26]

I hear Bush personally planted the bombs while McCain held the flashlight for him. Bin Laden was there too handing him tools. Afterwards they roasted marshmellows by campfire and plotted how Bin Laden would claim credit and then go hide in a cave.

[Determinado]

I ****ing knew it. Damn those kids!

[SpoonMan999]

These theories have all been disproved. Search for the Loose Change thread and see my arguments and evidence there, I don't feel like reposting.

[Determinado]

These theories have all been disproved. Search for the Loose Change thread and see my arguments and evidence there, I don't feel like reposting.

I searched for it, read the entire thread, and it wasn't disproven confused:

This is a quite lengthy document with very convincing things, just look at the part I suggested: 1.2.4 slicing steel.

Loose change is a VERY disappointing documentary, and I suggest watching September Clues instead which is more convincing in an intelligent way. I also messaged the creator of it on youtube and he wasn't a lunatic at all, very kind person in fact.

This document is better than anything I've seen before though. These are all facts, not neccesarily pointing towards a certain theory and the collapse of WTC7 wasn't even noticed in the other thread.

[Mathalamus]

what, are you a king of debates and theories?

[Determinado]

what, are you a king of debates and theories?

WHAT
OF COURSE NOT

As I said, if a *** exists it's me!

[fleaflickerx]

Terrorists did a bad thing.
/Thread?

[Determinado]

Terrorists did a bad thing.
/Thread?

Who are the terrorists is the question and what's the truth behind 9/11. If you don't see the thread... I don't know what you are

[Mathalamus]

sheesh, all these conperiasy theories has got to stop, the towers are gone, afganistan is toppled suddams dead, and there isnt enough evidence, just go with the fact that it was a tragic terrorist attack ok?

[Determinado]

So you don't care wether Bin Laden or George Bush brought down the towers? You don't care if the massacrer of the Americans lives hiding somewhere in a cave, or is enjoying his presidential money in Texas?

If anyone would actually just go to passage 1.2.4 and give the document the chance to get your attention...

If you don't want to discuss the document or the attacks, then just don't reply at all. Makes no sense.

[Mathalamus]

i cant be botherd to download a PDF reader. but fine, ill read it.

[Determinado]

Don't you guys use PDF? What are you doing in your professional life? In Belgium we use it all the time, at school, university, job, several organizations, etc

[Mathalamus]

as a guy who uses the computer for gaming and talking to people, i sure dont need every common feature

[Nethran]

I hear Bush personally planted the bombs while McCain held the flashlight for him. Bin Laden was there too handing him tools. Afterwards they roasted marshmellows by campfire and plotted how Bin Laden would claim credit and then go hide in a cave.

Lawl.

The no-planes theory is very harsh for people that had relatives in the planes, but as it seems no one actually had relatives on those planes. There is great mystery about the planes and there's stories about people who heard the flight was cancelled, or that the planes were actually still on the airport when they appeared to have crashed into the WTC.

No planes? Wtf? Since when has there been a no planes theory? I was watching Good Morning America that morning and watched the second plane hit the building. And what about Flight 94 or whatever? the one destined for the Pentagon or White House or whatever it was going for, when passengers overtook the terrorists and crashed it in a field? That plane surely existed. And the reason you don't hear about the 250 or so passengers fromt he planes that hit is because over 3,000 died in the buildings themselves; mathematically, you have abetter chance of hearing about those 3,000 and their families than a meager 250-ish.

[ominousferret11]

Kellard, i love you. I may flame you in the mJ thread, but i downright love you after reading that.

Ok, i read your "sliced steel" document and i have found it eronious. Let me take the time to disprove point by point what just happened.

Although Van Romero later “changed his mind”, he still admitted the collapses looked like demolitions
[16] This is true in a number of ways. Dr. David Ray Griffin has noted eleven characteristics of the
WTC collapses consistent with “Controlled Demolition”: 1) Sudden Onset; 2) Straight Down; 3) Almost
Free-Fall Speed; 4) Total Collapse; 5) Sliced Steel; 6) Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials;
7) Dust Clouds; 8) Horizontal Ejections; 9) Demolition Rings; 10) Sounds Produced by Explosions; 11)
Molten Steel. [17]

1.) ...what? yes, the building fell suddenly within 10-15 minutes... holy balls thats sudden... moron
2.) Yes, the building was built with an "exoskeleton" which means that a building at that height is DESIGNED to collapse within itself so it doesn't destroy the buildings surrounding it. ask any well informed engineer (maybe even the guy who built it? history channel did a special on it... look it up). if you watch the buildings closely before they collapse, the top of the building expands just a couple of yards either way and the floors start falling onto each other like cards. if you play stupid for long enough, you eventually become stupid.
3.) almost free fall speed... this pains me. the top floor wasn't rocket propelled so why the **** would it fall any faster?
4.) Total collapse, this man does not deserve a phd, actually... what does he have his phd in? because a toddler could tell you that if 1000 tons of BUILDING falls into itself, it may just ****ing collapse, totally.. i'm proud of this man for making such an observation.
5.) sliced steel... yes, when steal cracks and breaks, it may look like its sliced simply because, oh yeah, it cracked (which explains the explosion sounds)
6.) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
7.) omg, i think im gonna puke i'm laughing so hard. so when a building collapses its supposed to be clean, huh...
8.) we're gonna conduct a small experiment. have a friend (if they are smart enough) clap and put your hands around his... you're gonna feel air move, so thats why glass exploded, one floor fell on top of the other and... whoosh.
9.) wtf is a demolition ring? i didn't find it off of any drops off of baal... so...
10.) cracking steel... i've bent 100lbs of steel at my workplace and when that cracks its pretty ****in loud... imagine 100tons of steel
11.) how much molten steel? because if it was a ****ing river, then yes... we should be concerned, but do you realize how much steel is in the workplace? elevator shafts? because i dont know if you know this or not.. but a plane hit the tower and JET FUEL leaked into the building which is why... oh shit, there was smoke wasnt there...

give me something more intelligent

[Determinado]

There's a no plane theory ever since there was no plane in that field... Did you ever look at the crash site? It looks nothing like a planecrash. Compare it with other *normal* planecrashes. Because after all Rumsfeld admitted flight 93 was shot down, instead of crashed here:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0[/media]

Now ominous, I'll work in points after showing my great drawing of what you are saying ;-)

Tada! Yes, it's not the most scientific thing you or I have seen in the last few decades, but it shows you simply what I want to say.
Going from the upper plane to the plane at the bottom:
1) Plane does not crash into core: No collapse
2) Plane crashes into core but is stopped by it (max possible if you ask me): Core is less strong on one side than on another
3) Plane crashes into core smashing it entirely: Core is still less strong on one side than the other.

The image beneath those 3 planes show planned demolition.

Now there's one problem with that. What happened to the core beneath the crash? Did they magically break as well? If the plane actually hit the core in any way, which is ALOT thicker than it was presented in the media (check the notes, p9,26,28&31 in the document), then nothing, or not much would have happened to the core beneath it. It would still be standing. It would have never collapsed like it did, straight down without leaving anything standing, and very obviously not letting sliced steel standing. (you can't have it both ways, melted AND sliced)


1) What they mean the building stood there without a problem for 10-15 minutes, and then, within 10 seconds the building collapses into dust. And EXACTLY the same happens to the second tower. And 10-15 minutes is indeed very sudden, because what on earth caused the core to collapse? A fire? The WTC has been burning for 3 hours from the 4th till 14th floor in a fire in 1975. The fire spread through the core. It didn't even think to collapse.
2) How did that exoskeleton collapse? There's only two ways: The exoskeleton was not broken, so it couldn't collapse. Second way: the exoskeleton was broken, causing the part above the crash to bend towards the weak side; instead, the entire exoskeleton vanished into nothingness, how could that happen?
3) Are you kidding me? That's the problem: It should have collapsed way slower because it met resistance of all of the floors beneath which were still standing strong. But apparently it did not meet any resistance at all, and THAT is why it's a problem it's at free fall speed.
4) Once again, if the building has just one plane crash in it, why would the building vanish into the nothingness? It's like one plane? Compare the plane with the building, and not the entire plane is fuel so where did it really come from?
5) Cracked and sliced is not the same thing. At p9 you can clearly see how column were sliced, or if we do it your way: cracked in EXACTLY the same manner, in one straight certain line.
6) Concrete does not pulverize if you drop it from half a mile high, man
7) If you'd just read the argumentation and not just the titles:
Concrete and all other non-metallic objects were pulverized to dust. Rather than a piling up of shattered concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse ("official theory"), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE
the buildings are falling. [18]
8) That's not what they're talking about. This is:
9) A demolition ring is a feature of intended, controlled collapse: It's several small explosions that go off rapidly after eachother and they generate squibs
10) Read some of the witnesses, some are in the basement hearing explosions, some hear explosions (or cracking steel, whatever doesn't matter) before the plane hits.
11) Pools of molten steel up to a week after the collapse. p11,45
Numerous confirmed references to “molten steel” appear in the 9/11 WTC literature. According to Mark Loizeaux, president of CDI, "pools
of molten steel were found” at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers down seven [basement] levels, "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed." As has been noted, construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit [1535° Celsius]. [37]
Oh btw, compare the amount of jet fuel to the size of the building, and think about how long it would take for the fuel to be burned up? A peak of 10 minutes heat wouldn't collapse a building like that.

More than half of my arguments come straight from the document, so you mustn't have read the argumentation below the titles or not understood it.

[SpoonMan999]

Sorry, when I said look at the Loose Change thread I was thinking of the C-Span thread.

Here's the post I made.

Ok, so after closing this window I went and looked up more information out of my own curiosity, yeah I know I said I was done but I had to present my findings.

I did some research and I think the wikipedia article probably sums up everything quite nicely, the sources for the article are of course listed at the bottom of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center

Here are some points for you to look at Mozzy.

1. The WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of a plane crashing into it's side, in case some pilot lost his way in the fog, but it was designed for what was the largest plane at the time. Know what that was? The Boeing 707-320 and in comparison the impact that plane would have made is less than one seventh of the impact that was made on 9/11, though this still didn't bring the buildings down.

2. The columns to support the building were all placed at the perimeter and the core leaving a large amount of empty space in between, this is probably why the plane penetrated so deep into the building.

3. Jet fuel can burn at 800-1500 degrees but steel loses half it's strength at 1202 degrees.

4. The impact completely blew off a great deal of the fire proofing around the steel.

5. The stairwells were determined to be improperly shielded.

6. Due to the placement of the columns once the strength of the core columns began to wane all of the weight was transfered to the perimeter columns, using the system you spoke of before Mozzy. But the perimeter columns were also weakened by the fires placing a lot of pressure on the exterior walls. Of course with the perimeter now failing the pressure was redistributed back to the core and boom...the tower comes down.

7. You were correct, though I didn't argue this point, they fell symmetrically.

To be continued, time to go home...

...Continued

8. Some speculate that even without the impact of the plane and with the fire proofing still intact the building still would have collapsed with a fire of that magnitude.

9. The 7th building, which you question the collapse of, had several diesel fuel tanks stored on several levels and pipe lines connecting them.

Those are the only two points I really want to add at this time.

Here's a link to the thread http://www.blizzsector.co/steam-room/336...-span.html

And here's some links to some interesting articles:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
Was 9/11 an Inside Job? | Cracked.com

Pointlesswasteoftime.com is a joke site but this is a really good article.

[Determinado]

There some interesting information at that popular mechanics site, really worth reading.

However, as usual, I'll still come up with back argumentation :p

1. this didn't bring the buildings down.

Wouldn't bring any building down really

2. The columns to support the building were all placed at the perimeter and the core leaving a large amount of empty space in between, this is probably why the plane penetrated so deep into the building.

This just isn't true. It's proven at p31 of the pdf, not just by the imagine but a lot more by the photograph of the WTC towers in construction.

3. Jet fuel can burn at 800-1500 degrees but steel loses half it's strength at 1202 degrees.

8. Some speculate that even without the impact of the plane and with the fire proofing still intact the building still would have collapsed with a fire of that magnitude.

9. The 7th building, which you question the collapse of, had several diesel fuel tanks stored on several levels and pipe lines connecting them.

The magnitude and effects of the fire are highly overrated.
First, because of the two towers collapsed in the entire same way. If jet fuel did it, how big are the changes the jet fuel spoiled in such a way the buildings collapsed in the same manner? We all saw that there was an explosion immediately after the plane vanished into the towers, so when did the fire start? Right then. Fire goes up. Jet fuel goes down. Do you think jet fuel will go faster down than it takes for the fire to spread through the fuel and light all the fuel? Because once the fuel is on fire, why would it still be able to spread to the lobby before it burned up?

And most interesting is the fact people say the fire did most of it. That's just not true; the article states an example of the Windsor building in Madrid. It burned for 2 full days, go to p26 to see the result: It didn't collapse and most of it was still standing. Moreover: In this building some of the top floor also collapsed onto lower floors, but never such thing as the 'pancaketheory' was witnessed here.

4. The impact completely blew off a great deal of the fire proofing around the steel.

I don't know really, I don't know what kind of fire proofing they use on steel. I do know however, that only the fire proofing can be torn appart on the spot of impact, not above and not below.

5. The stairwells were determined to be improperly shielded.

Don't know what you mean with this? If it's important please rephrase?

6. Due to the placement of the columns once the strength of the core columns began to wane all of the weight was transfered to the perimeter columns, using the system you spoke of before Mozzy. But the perimeter columns were also weakened by the fires placing a lot of pressure on the exterior walls. Of course with the perimeter now failing the pressure was redistributed back to the core and boom...the tower comes down.

If such great pressure is coming from above, don't you think the huge structure that was coming down would have chosen the easiest way, the one of least resistance? It would have at least bend a bit, but it really didn't. And it went just that way with the other tower. And it went just that way with WTC7, and as you know, you can't say there was huge amounts of pressure coming from above there.

There never has been coverage about WTC7 while no one is really saying blowing up WTC7 was a bad thing. As far as I know, there were no victims there at all. Simply admitting that this building was demolished for safety reasons or something would have made the situations look a lot more clear.
And diesel tanks? That would have been very clearly if it were indeed those that exploded. It would have been a big explosion, blowing off walls or parts of the building. WTC7 was undoubtly controlled demolition. It would be too much coincidence that 3 buildings collapse in the same way when no buildings have ever done this in history before, except for controlled demolition.

Hey man, I like discussing with someone who actually arguments

[Bloodangel26]

So seriously, who blew up the towers then if all your paranoid, lame ass conspiracy theories are true? The US government? Whats their motive? Why would the US government kill off a few thousand of it's own people? Just to gain a few points of approval rating?

I honestly can't fathom how you can be so disrespectful to all the civilians and firefighters who died in those towers, and all the soldiers fighting in the middle east to prevent something like this from happening again. And all their families. What? Just because you "like to argue about these things?"