Message 19 of 52 (223397) 07-12-2005 11:55 AM

Reply to: Message 18 by Chiroptera 07-12-2005 11:44 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories_(claims_about_Jews_and_Zionists)

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-Jul-2005 11:56 AM

Message 20 of 52 (223398) 07-12-2005 12:01 PM

Reply to: Message 14 by Brad 07-12-2005 11:37 AM

Okay, let's say for instance it wasn't just jet fuel combined with an enormous explosion on a structure under stress from its own weight and wind. It had to be something else... What else could it be?

Whatever else it had to be, had to have been placed pretty much throughout the structure (we know it wasn't bomb blasts located in just the basement or something like that). Indeed it had to have been placed throughout both structures.

So how exactly could such material have been placed in buildings crawling with people, including security, such that no one would have noticed? Wouldn't there be reports of mysterious vans unloading unknown material or something?

And then how was it triggered? It would have had to have been done before knowing whether the pilots would have been successful hitting the buildings. How would they know how to place all that material in such a way that a plane impacting teh building wouldn't disable the massive wiring job they'd have had to place?

Indeed, what would happen if the planes missed entirely. Since one plane went down, is there a building loaded with explosives sitting somewhere ready to be taken down in a few seconds? Or was it just the WTC towers that were rigged?

Message 21 of 52 (223404) 07-12-2005 12:31 PM

Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H 07-12-2005 12:01 PM

Brad

Message 23 of 52 (223424) 07-12-2005 2:05 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H 07-12-2005 12:38 PM

Brad

Message 24 of 52 (223427) 07-12-2005 2:12 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Brad 07-12-2005 2:05 PM

The Twin Towers were basically held up by the strength of the attachments between the floors and the vertical structure. Each floor was hung from the interior and exterior vertical members. While the vertical support structure was strong enough in compression to support all of the floors, the devices supporting each floor only supported the weight of one floor plus occupants.

Once the support connections of one floor gave way, allowing that floor to fall down on the floor below, the collapse was assured. The heat of the fire did not have to destroy the integrity of any of the vertical members, only the links that supported one floor.

Message 25 of 52 (223429) 07-12-2005 2:13 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Brad 07-12-2005 2:05 PM

The weight of the structure above the impact would cause stress on that portion above the impact. As it begins to falter of itself it would put greater pressure on the parts below it... I think.

Physicists and architects would be helpful at this point.

I agree, but that is what was behind my questions. I have seen how intricate of setups implosions are to create, and it involves a lot explosives and wiring for those explosives to pull off. I don't see that going unnoticed.

Message 26 of 52 (223449) 07-12-2005 4:51 PM

Reply to: Message 23 by Brad 07-12-2005 2:05 PM

Well, FEMA does. The official report on the collapse is here:

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

For an easier to understand take on the problem, I like this article

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The author of the article knows what he is talking about, the article is peer-reviewed, and it is not overly dry (unlike the FEMA official report).

He says that what caused the collpase wasn't the heat from the fire, but that the heat from the fire was uneven; this caused buckling of the main support beams which caused a level to collapse.

This might also have information; I saw the original program but have not checked out the web site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

Chris Manteuffel

Message 27 of 52 (223451) 07-12-2005 5:24 PM

Reply to: Message 7 by cavediver 07-12-2005 8:22 AM

Are you kidding? You can't even imply the word "conspiracy" and expect to be taken seriously. There's almost nobody who believes that conspiracies are even possible; which is why I come to the conclusion that they happen every now and then. The constant offhand rejection of conspiracy theories is the perfect cover under which to conduct a conspiracy, wouldn't you say?

Message 28 of 52 (223452) 07-12-2005 5:27 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by CK 07-12-2005 8:52 AM

Ok, so now we're two for two in regards to simultaneous wargame exercises. It blows my mind that they were training in exactly the "right" place at the right time.

Can anyone here tell me that this is just a coincidence? At this point there's only two realistic possibilities:

1) High-level Islamist infiltration of both our governments.
2) Collusion between our governments and Islamist terror.

I was prepared to believe that the terrorists were really lucky the first time. I'm not prepared to accept luck as an explanation for the London bombings.

Message 29 of 52 (223455) 07-12-2005 5:43 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog 07-12-2005 5:27 PM

I've been involved in a corprorate continuity management exercises before (and I've been working full-time for just over a year), and they must happen fairly regularly for a company like Visor to remain in business, so something like this is not that unlikely.

Chris

This message has been edited by cmanteuf, 07-12-2005 05:43 PM

Message 30 of 52 (223457) 07-12-2005 5:46 PM

Reply to: Message 12 by cmanteuf 07-12-2005 11:30 AM

Sure. Here's an article from the Associated Press:

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

quote:

---

In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.

---

It's too bad for the late Mrs. Olsen that nobody thought to include Ted in the plot. Or maybe they got the same warning Willie Brown got and didn't take it seriously.

How could they have caught us by surprise, when Bush is reading memos about bin Laden attacking in the US and using airplanes as weapons? When the FBI is sending up red flags about people taking commercial pilot training and flunking the landing units? How were they able to schedule their attack on the exact day that a scenario sufficiently similar enough to cause confusion was being wargamed?

Coincidence? I would have believed it for 9/11 but not for both 9/11 and the London bombings. Surprise? I would have believed it if Bush hadn't consistently blocked the 9/11 Commission at the start of their inquiry, and if his testimony hadn't been unrecorded, held at the White House, and accompanied by Dick Cheney.

Look, at this point, the side that needs to overcome the greatest hurdle of incredulity and staggering coincidence is the side that posits no American complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The things that you're asking me to swallow are, on their face, simply unbelievable.