Sincere (non hating) discussion desired

20 minutes in on part 2 to clarify.  thanks for any comments (from those who have viewed most of the material please).

I'm not a conspiracy kinda guy myself, so this isn't going to typically appeal to me.  But if I was, I would get away from making open inferences and stick to the facts to make my case, of which there isn't much here.

It's interesting to me that the people that continually blame the US government for incompetance (and many times rightly so), are the same people that suggest that the government has the capability and wherewithal to successully carry out conspiracies to fool billions.

Interesting video.  I think the idea of the government causing 911 is hogwash though (although I'm not opposed to the idea of Bush being involved, being a Bush hater and all , hahahahaha) .  They certainly were incompetent though.  Who caused 911 is still open in my mind......I thought the part where they tracked down (was it 10 of them?) the 'alleged' hijackers of the planes and demonstrated that they were still alive and well in their respective countries was pretty interesting though.  How could they still be alive if they died in the plane crashes?

That in addition to the laughable explanation that the WTC towers and that other building  were brought down due to fires.  These would be the ONLY buildings in history to be brought down from fires, especially ones that couldn't have been even close to hot enough to melt the structural steel. 

Thanks for the post.  It's nice to have a fellow "conspiracy theorist" around .  I still don't think that the government was involved per se.

9/11: Debunking the Myths (Popular Mechanics)

Mike, how dare you let facts get in the way of a "good" conspiracy?

[quote=opie]

[quote=mikebutler222]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html ?page=1[/quote]

Mike, how dare you let facts get in the way of a "good" conspiracy?

[/quote]

Sorry, but the "Loose Change" types don't deserve any respect. I'm doing the best I can just to be civil and post a few rebuttal sites.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Check out the line by line rebuttal on the “Loose Change” film itself. Be sure not to miss the audiotape of the members (“Deniers Speak”) of this movement on various radio programs.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2070972464271621938

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uFNBpjZCI4&eurl=

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

MikeB:

Did you see the part where they demonstrated that a majority of the alleged hijackers are still alive?  Although this is NOT evidence of a conspiracy; if true, it is certainly indicitve of severe incompetence.  Also the pentagon "missile" was certainly not a Boeing 757, my father in law was a Boeing inspector for many years and he was able to point out immediately that the 'recovered' engines and other assorted wreckage was absolutely NOT a Boeing 757.  Fox put out a good show (I think it is also on YouTube?) on the GLARING inconcistencies of the Pentagon attack.  Like I said I don't think it's the government, the verdict is still out IMHO.  There also is a really good video that slows down the 'video' of the airplane strike and zooms in on the first couple frames and the picture is clearly a missile not a 757 nose.  Damage consistent with a missile, picture of a missile nose on the video, plus all other video that was available is 'locked away'.  Sounds just a little fishy to me.

What would you expect from a conspiracy theorist though?

Touche big boy.

Grrrrrrrrrrowwwwlllll.

Where are the people who were in the plane that hit the Pentagon if they didn't die there?

Where is the plane that is thought to have hit the Pentagon if it didn't actually hit there?

Where was a missile of that size fired from?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=opie]

[quote=mikebutler222]http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html ?page=1[/quote]

Mike, how dare you let facts get in the way of a "good" conspiracy?

[/quote]

Sorry, but the "Loose Change" types don't deserve any respect. I'm doing the best I can just to be civil and post a few rebuttal sites.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

Check out the line by line rebuttal on the “Loose Change” film itself. Be sure not to miss the audiotape of the members (“Deniers Speak”) of this movement on various radio programs.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2070972464271621938

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uFNBpjZCI4&eurl=

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

[/quote]

Definitely some good links there Mike, thanks.  There are still many many discrepancies that are not addressed though. 

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Where are the people who were in the plane that hit the Pentagon if they didn't die there?

Where is the plane that is thought to have hit the Pentagon if it didn't actually hit there?

Where was a missile of that size fired from?

[/quote]

Those questions don't have to be answered to demonstrate that the wreckage was not consistent with a Boeing 757 and that the video clearly shows a missile head (long and narrow) not a 757 nose (tall and wide). 

Don't have to be answered?  Of course they do, the video was distorted by the fisheye lens that was used.

Only mental midgets would think anything else.

check these photos out boys:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cosmicpeng uin.com/911/pentagon/images/simulation1.jpg&imgrefurl=ht tp://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/ImageIndexPentagon.h tml&h=322&w=500&sz=19&hl=en&start=4& tbnid=1ne4xGHRGPAUkM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=130&prev=/ima ges%3Fq%3D911%2Bpentagon%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

Oh and I forgot you guys are saying that this damage:

.....is caused by a Jumbo 757? 

Nah, a 757 is not a “Jumbo.”  It’s a single aisle airplane.

[quote=dude]

MikeB:

Did you see the part where they demonstrated that a majority of the alleged hijackers are still alive?  Although this is NOT evidence of a conspiracy; if true, it is certainly indicitve of severe incompetence.  Also the pentagon "missile" was certainly not a Boeing 757, my father in law was a Boeing inspector for many years and he was able to point out immediately that the 'recovered' engines and other assorted wreckage was absolutely NOT a Boeing 757.  Fox put out a good show (I think it is also on YouTube?) on the GLARING inconcistencies of the Pentagon attack.  Like I said I don't think it's the government, the verdict is still out IMHO.  There also is a really good video that slows down the 'video' of the airplane strike and zooms in on the first couple frames and the picture is clearly a missile not a 757 nose.  Damage consistent with a missile, picture of a missile nose on the video, plus all other video that was available is 'locked away'.  Sounds just a little fishy to me.

What would you expect from a conspiracy theorist though?

Touche big boy.

Grrrrrrrrrrowwwwlllll.

Note I said IF true.  Just interesting.  For me the Pentagon attack is the real deal though.

You’re saying the Pentagon was attacked–as if the rest of us doubt it?

I also did not use the word "prove" Joe.......please don't twist my words, I think the loose change video has a lot of pure B.S. in addition to some good info.....mostly B.S. though. 

NASDy:  I guess the 'jumbo' reference was to clarify that the 'official' impact hole looks like a much smaller plane (if it was a plane) and a 757 is quite a large plane .  Sorry, I am certainly nieve on aircraft.

NASDy:

To clarify, the idea that the attack on the Pentagon was a 757 seems to be B.S.

The 757 is actually quite narrow. a naive person might think it was a missile.

newbie, did you get my book recommendation from the medallion thread?

[quote=hubbabubba]newbie, did you get my book recommendation from the medallion thread?[/quote]

I knew Dr. Black a little from his days at Goldman--he was brought over to our shop by our resident brains to talk about the formula.

It got me into more trouble than it solved because it doesn't take rumors and other forms of inside information into its calculations.

Certainly the formula has its limitations as does any arbitrage/quant strategy.  Its still an interesting read though b/c it brings to life some of the dull theory.  Not as interesting as “When Genius Failed” though. 

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://website.lineon e.net/~bosankoe/Video_h1_2x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://website .lineone.net/~bosankoe/analysis.htm&h=618&w=840& sz=77&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=bRh9V8RBduKh7M:&t bnh=107&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpentagon%2Bvideo %26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26s a%3DN

Good info too. 

I hestitate to continue in this rather absurd discussion, but asking someone "does this look like a 757 hit this building" is rather silly given that NO ONE HAS SEEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN BEFORE.

By the way, as in all things, incentives matter.  Do you think the associates of these now vaporized (and likely virgin-less) gentlemen have more incentive to show "proof" that they are still alive?

Keep in mind the name Mohammad is the most common on the planet.

[quote=dude]

MikeB:

Did you see the part where they demonstrated that a majority of the alleged hijackers are still alive? 

They claimed it, they didn't demonstrate it.

Although this is NOT evidence of a conspiracy; if true, it is certainly indicitve of severe incompetence. 

No, it would be proof that the entire mainstream media is in on it too as they would otherwise never, never let the "fact" that these guys are alive go unmentioned in every newspaper from now until doomsday.

Also the pentagon "missile" was certainly not a Boeing 757, my father in law was a Boeing inspector for many years and he was able to point out immediately that the 'recovered' engines and other assorted wreckage was absolutely NOT a Boeing 757. 

Please tell me you're kidding.... imagine how large the conspiracy to cover up THAT detail would have to be.

 Fox put out a good show (I think it is also on YouTube?) on the GLARING inconcistencies of the Pentagon attack. 

Link it to us. No doubt it can be dissected quickly.

 Like I said I don't think it's the government, the verdict is still out IMHO. 

Not to rational people it isn't.

There also is a really good video that slows down the 'video' of the airplane strike and zooms in on the first couple frames and the picture is clearly a missile not a 757 nose. 

Again, please tell me you're kidding...

Damage consistent with a missile, picture of a missile nose on the video, plus all other video that was available is 'locked away'.  Sounds just a little fishy to me.

Again, step back for just a sec from what you just said and imagine the massive conspiracy that has to be at work, even now, to cover up that detail. It defines reason.

[quote=dude]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://website.lineon e.net/~bosankoe/Video_h1_2x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://website .lineone.net/~bosankoe/analysis.htm&h=618&w=840& sz=77&hl=en&start=33&tbnid=bRh9V8RBduKh7M:&t bnh=107&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpentagon%2Bvideo %26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26s a%3DN

Good info too. 

[/quote]

No, dude, there's nothing there. Now "good info" would be this guy finding a way to prove that the bodies there were faked (to include their DNA) to cover the conspiracy. Seriously, this is pure moonbat stuff.

How in the hell does anyone recover DNA from bodies that were scortched in an inferno like that one?

note:  sounds fishy does not mean conclusive evidence to me.  I am still open that my skepticism is misplaced.

[quote=dude]

How in the hell does anyone recover DNA from bodies that were scortched in an inferno like that one?

[/quote]

Unless the body is burned to ashes it is possible to recover DNA--I would think that you'd know that.

I am also remembering the dozens of people interviewed at the pentagon site that were saying “it sounded like a missile” (yes I know others said it sounded like a plane as well).  Whatever…being a moonbat isn’t so bad…right?  Um maybe I’ll have the doctors up my meds .

My final link and then I'm done (this is in reponse to NASD's assertion that DNA was recovered etc....).  3/4 down on the page it shows some decent info.  Peace.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/inside.html

You're not a moonbat, you're a moron.

A plane took off, radar tracked it as it flew into the Pentagon, the plane never appeared anywhere else and none of the passengers phoned home.

A missile large enough to do that much damage would have to  have been fired from somewhere--where is that somewhere?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

You're not a moonbat, you're a moron.

A plane took off, radar tracked it as it flew into the Pentagon, the plane never appeared anywhere else and none of the passengers phoned home.

A missile large enough to do that much damage would have to  have been fired from somewhere--where is that somewhere?

[/quote]

From between your ears.  There's nothing there now, ya cute little dung beetle you!

[quote=dude]

How in the hell does anyone recover DNA from bodies that were scortched in an inferno like that one?

[/quote]

It happens all the time, and you can be sure if it couldn't there would be people well versed in the field stepping forward to challenge the findings.

[quote=dude]I am also remembering the dozens of people interviewed at the pentagon site that were saying "it sounded like a missile" (yes I know others said it sounded like a plane as well).  Whatever.......being a moonbat isn't so bad....right?  Um maybe I'll have the doctors up my meds .[/quote]

If you've ever heard a jet (any jet, much less a large airliner) flying just feet off the deck, you'd know it does sound like a missile. It shouldn't be surprising that people who've never heard a jetliner flying just feet off the ground before would note that it sounds like another form of low flying, very fast device. Most of the noise comes (as it approaches you,) from aerodynamic forces in both cases.

You may be aware that it’s common for hurricane and tornado survivors to say “it sounded like a freight train”. That doesn’t mean it really was a train.

[quote=dude]

My final link and then I'm done (this is in reponse to NASD's assertion that DNA was recovered etc....).  3/4 down on the page it shows some decent info.  Peace.

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/inside.html

[/quote]

More nothing. The hole in the third ring of the building wasn't made by the noise of the plane, it was made by an engine that was found at the site of the hole.

I'm a liar here's another

from: http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/911.html#WTC2_white_p lane

• 9/11 - Witnesses at the Pentagon report the smell of cordite, a smokeless explosive powder.

Gilah Goldsmith, personnel attorney at the Pentagon

"We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke." - Jewish News Weekly (09/21/01)

Don Perkal, deputy General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of Defense

"The airliner crashed between two and three hundred feet from my office in the Pentagon, just around a corner from where I work. I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you. My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.

Two explosions, a few minutes apart, prompted me to start walking." - McSweeney's Internet Tendency: The Works of Humankind (09/19/01)

- cordite - A smokeless explosive powder consisting of nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, and petrolatum that has been dissolved in acetone, dried, and extruded in cords.

- Cordite is a smokeless propellent explosive made by combining two explosives: nitrocellulose and nitroglycerin. It has commonly been used in firearms since the early 20th Century. It has also been used in solid fuel rockets.

• 9/11 - Experienced air traffic controllers thought that the alleged Boeing 757 that was flying towards the Pentagon flew like a "military jetfighter."

‘Get These Planes on the Ground’, Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.
But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver." - ABC (10/24/01) [Wayback Machine]

On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked'
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."
"Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers." - Washington Post (9/12/01)

Primary Target
"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target."
"But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." - CBS (9/21/01)

[quote=mikebutler222]

You may be aware that it’s common for hurricane and tornado survivors to say “it sounded like a freight train”. That doesn’t mean it really was a train.

[/quote]

Dude, Mike is mocking you.

The video I referenced looked either like the from of a narrow tipped jet or a missle....either way...

How could somebody with an aluminum foil hat pass Series 7?

Just how DID you do it, NASDy?

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=dude]

How in the hell does anyone recover DNA from bodies that were scortched in an inferno like that one?

[/quote]

Unless the body is burned to ashes it is possible to recover DNA--I would think that you'd know that.

[/quote]

Bodies from the pentagon yeah, but from the plane?  You know I really don't have enough time to research this like I'd like to.  I know that mitochondrial DNA techniques can recover DNA from badly burned tissue and cells but how could all those people survive an explosion that basically disintegrated almost ALL of that plane(very little was recovered)?  Common sense dictates that if all that steel just evaporated what about all that flesh and bone?

MikeB said:

More nothing. The hole in the third ring of the building wasn't made by the noise of the plane, it was made by an engine that was found at the site of the hole.

*******************************************

Yeah, it's that plane engine which my father in law said "is not a 757 engine, but from a smaller plane" that started to get me interested in all this crap.  Remember, he was a Boeing inspector for many years.

[quote=dude]

Yeah, it's that plane engine which my father in law said "is not a 757 engine, but from a smaller plane" that started to get me interested in all this crap.  Remember, he was a Boeing inspector for many years.

[/quote]

And when was he allowed to personally inspect the engine?

Surely you're not saying that he made that judgement from looking at some photographs.

Where is the 757 that took off from Reagan and flew into the Pentagon--you know the one tracked by radar.

Why haven't the people who were on that plane phoned home if they were not involved in a crash?

Where was the missile fired from?

You mean the one this guy flew:

• 9/11 - Flight 77 is allegedly flown into the Pentagon by 28 year old Saudi Arabian Hani Hanjour who has never flown a Boeing 757 in real life, was described by many of his former flight instructors as a "horrible pilot," is the only alleged hijacker to not have a passenger number or seat assignment, is thought that he might not have had a ticket to get on board the plane, and was unable to rent a single-engine Cessna 172 one month before the attacks because he had trouble controlling and landing it during a flight test.

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." - New York Times (05/04/02)

"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager - CBS (05/10/02)

"Hijacking Suspects - Aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which took off from Washington Dulles Airport for Los Angeles and crashed into the Pentagon." - ABC (09/15/01)

Alhamzi, Nawaq — Passenger No. 12
Almidhar, Khalid — Passenger No. 20, Seat 12B
Alhamzi, Salem — Passenger No. 13, Seat 5F
Moqed, Majed — Passenger No. 19, Seat 12A
Hanjour, Hani — [N/A]

"His name [Hani Hanjour] was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket." - Washington Post

Tracing Trail Of Hijackers

"The hijacker believed to have steered American Airlines Flight 77 on its fatal path toward the Pentagon recently honed his rusty flying skills at a small Maryland airport, and more than a year ago sought training at a flight school in Arizona.
At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.
In the spring of 2000, Hanjour had asked to enroll in the CRM Airline Training Center in Scottsdale, Ariz., for advanced training, said the center's attorney, Gerald Chilton Jr. Hanjour had attended the school for three months in late 1996 and again in December 1997 but never finished coursework for a license to fly a single-engine aircraft, Chilton said.
When Hanjour reapplied to the center last year, "We declined to provide training to him because we didn't think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997," Chilton said." - Newsday (12/23/01) [Archived:  Wayback Machine

********************************

Yet he was making manuevers that air traffic controlers thought were military fighter manuevers right?

[quote=dude]

I'm a liar here's another

from: http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/911.html#WTC2_white_p lane[/quote]

Here's a nice line by line take down of this lunacy;

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html

[quote=dude]

MikeB said:

More nothing. The hole in the third ring of the building wasn't made by the noise of the plane, it was made by an engine that was found at the site of the hole.

*******************************************

Yeah, it's that plane engine which my father in law said "is not a 757 engine, but from a smaller plane" that started to get me interested in all this crap.  Remember, he was a Boeing inspector for many years.

[/quote]

Then he was right, and based on seeing pieces of engine wreckage on a TV screen he either saw something none of the investigator on the gorund saw OR every FAA investigator is in on the conspiracy, or he was simply wrong. You tell me which is more likely.

BTW, I was mistaken, it was the front landing gear that made the hole.

[quote=dude][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=dude]

How in the hell does anyone recover DNA from bodies that were scortched in an inferno like that one?

[/quote]

Unless the body is burned to ashes it is possible to recover DNA--I would think that you'd know that.

[/quote]

Bodies from the pentagon yeah, but from the plane?  You know I really don't have enough time to research this like I'd like to.  I know that mitochondrial DNA techniques can recover DNA from badly burned tissue and cells but how could all those people survive an explosion that basically disintegrated almost ALL of that plane(very little was recovered)?  Common sense dictates that if all that steel just evaporated what about all that flesh and bone?

[/quote]

The steel didn't "just evaporate", pieces large and small were everywhere and appear in many pictures. The same applies to the flesh and bone.

Now, ask yourself this one, if it wasn't possible, what's kept every DNA expert on the planet from coming forward to point that out, or are they all in on it too?

[quote=dude]

You mean the one this guy flew:

• 9/11 - Flight 77 is allegedly flown into the Pentagon by 28 year old Saudi Arabian Hani Hanjour who has never flown a Boeing 757 in real life, was described by many of his former flight instructors as a "horrible pilot," is the only alleged hijacker to not have a passenger number or seat assignment, is thought that he might not have had a ticket to get on board the plane, and was unable to rent a single-engine Cessna 172 one month before the attacks because he had trouble controlling and landing it during a flight test.

Yes, that's the guy. There's nothing in your laundry list there that says he couldn't control the plane in flight even if he sucked at landing it.

Yet he was making manuevers that air traffic controlers thought were military fighter manuevers right?

You might want to reread that quote. The ATC people said they thought it was a fighter not because executing the move with a jetliner would have required a great deal of skill, but because they said it would be "unsafe" to do it in a 757.

[quote=dude]

The video I referenced looked either like the from of a narrow tipped jet or a missle....either way...

[/quote]

If you're talking about the parking lot video, the only one I know of that's been released, the plane it self doesn't appear clearly in it because of the speed of the plane and the slow shutter speed of the camera. However, if it makes you feel better over 200 witnesses saw it as a 757, including the crew of a C130 that ATC asked to monitor it. Of course the deep thinkers of "Loose Nuts" won't bother to point that out.

[quote=NASD Newbie]How could somebody with an aluminum foil hat pass Series 7?[/quote]

Got a 92, which you should recognize since it's in the range of your IQ.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

I'm a liar here's another

from: http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/911.html#WTC2_white_p lane[/quote]

Here's a nice line by line take down of this lunacy;

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg2.html

[/quote]

Thanks, that was a great link.......like I said, I haven't put too much into this and would love to have the time to look into it more but you're putting out some good info there.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=dude]

The video I referenced looked either like the from of a narrow tipped jet or a missle....either way...

[/quote]

If you're talking about the parking lot video, the only one I know of that's been released, the plane it self doesn't appear clearly in it because of the speed of the plane and the slow shutter speed of the camera. However, if it makes you feel better over 200 witnesses saw it as a 757, including the crew of a C130 that ATC asked to monitor it. Of course the deep thinkers of "Loose Nuts" won't bother to point that out.

[/quote]

Good stuff.  Like I said earlier, there's a lot of B.S. in loose change for sure and a few points were made that have been satisfied.  Thanks for the discussion. 

I just had to participate because of all the prior 'conspiracy' crap.

I will say though that y’all (a few individuals in particular) can be serious a*sholes to people who have sincere questions about areas they don’t really care to be experts in.  I have never really put too much energy into researching this stuff (I wish I had time) and loose change was my first exposure to this (well not exactly, I recently saw ferenheight 911, which was all hype IMHO and MikeyB’s input in a previous discussion was helpful).  I still feel like there are questions to be answered like why they won’t release any other videos from surrounding businesses etc… but that certainly is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Hey, speaking of conspiracies, have any of you seen this one?

http://www.flight93crash.com/

I found myself thinking, "well, so what if they did."  In light of everything else going down, it would make sense to shoot down a threat.  I don't necessarily believe this stuff, but it makes for interesting reading.  If any of you have a "debunking" site, I'd be obliged if you could post it...

[quote=dude]I will say though that y'all (a few individuals in particular) can be serious a*sholes to people who have sincere questions about areas they don't really care to be experts in.  I have never really put too much energy into researching this stuff (I wish I had time) and loose change was my first exposure to this (well not exactly, I recently saw ferenheight 911, which was all hype IMHO and MikeyB's input in a previous discussion was helpful).  I still feel like there are questions to be answered like why they won't release any other videos from surrounding businesses etc..... but that certainly is not evidence of a conspiracy.[/quote]

Dude, the only reason I wasn't a major *sshole in this discussion is because I think, based on earlier conversations, that while you're seriously misguided, you're sincere. That and the fact that I'm not interested in a food fight. Otherwise I would have opened up with both barrels. I don’t think their line of “questioning” (they don’t really question, they outright claim a massive conspiracy) is that far removed from suggesting that the boogyman lives under your bed or that your parents actually had two more kids than they told you about, and that they slaughtered them and fed the bodies to you throughout your childhood. It’s maddening to me that they aren’t tarred, feathered and driven out of town on a rail.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I think that, among other things, what you fail to see (and what causes some of the anger in the responses you get) when you entertain these conspiracy theories, is what you are inferring about a vast number of people, many of whom I believe to be quiet noble, if not outright heroes is pretty nasty stuff.

Leave aside, for example, the attitude of the “Loose Nuts” crowd towards the victims of 9/11 as evidenced in their radio interviews I provided, and look at what would have to be true in their theory held any water;

1)    The <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US military (since no one else has the weapons) would have to had to attack the Pentagon and kill members of their own. Vast numbers of military people would have to be in on the conspiracy.

2)    Every FAA investigator would have to be in on the conspiracy.

3) Every ATC would have to be in on the conspiracy.

4) Every member of the 9/11 Commission, to include every last staffer, would have to be in on the conspiracy.

5) thousands of yet unmentioned people, from every knowledgeable aircraft manufacturer to the guys that laid the demolitions to bring down the WTC have to be in on it.

6) More amazingly still, every single member of this vast conspiracy has to still, to this very day, be silent about it.

And to what end? Even if the administration was as evil as the “Loose Nuts” types claim, why would they undertake such a massive and potentially damaging ( if caught) conspiracy, since their eeevvviiillll aims could be attained with much smaller, far more easy to control and contain conspiratorial actions? Even Noam Chomsky says as much. It simply makes no sense and no number of “documentaries” with spooky background music based on little more than distortions, junk science and the confused reckonings of people caught in the massive confusion will change that.

Too-I think all this conspiracy b.s. is massively disrespectful to the 3000+ victims(and their families and friends) who perished on 9-11.

Many of these ‘freaks’ are merely exploiting this tragedy for profit and publicity.  Shame on them.

The other day Newbietta and I went to see "World Trade Center."

Don't wait for it to come out on DVD because you'll lose the spectacular sound mixing that they did.

The scenes leading up to the attack are a joy to those who love New York, and the scenes following the attack are very realistic about what it was like afterwards.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

The other day Newbietta and I went to see “World Trade Center.”

Don't wait for it to come out on DVD because you'll lose the spectacular sound mixing that they did.

The scenes leading up to the attack are a joy to those who love New York, and the scenes following the attack are very realistic about what it was like afterwards.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=NASD Newbie]

The other day Newbietta and I went to see "World Trade Center."

Don't wait for it to come out on DVD because you'll lose the spectacular sound mixing that they did.

The scenes leading up to the attack are a joy to those who love New York, and the scenes following the attack are very realistic about what it was like afterwards.

[/quote]

So where were you when it happened?  I was in mid-Nassau county.
[/quote]

I was in midtown.

Back in 1993 I was in Five WTC and will never forget the sensation of having my chest vibrate, or the faces of those who were coming out of the smokey stairwells.

I have a very good friend who worked at least sixty floors up in the North Tower.  He had a visitor in his office--an older man who was about 6'8" and weighed well in excess of 300 pounds.  He and a friend from the office got under each of the old mans armpits and started down.

My skin is tingling--I can't help it.

When they got to 12 a firefighter COMING UP (bravery personified) screamed, "You've got to get out NOW!"  They indicated that they had to help the old man.

The firefighter screamed "I'll take him--you two RUN down the stairs."

With that the firefighter picked the old man up like a rag doll and tossed him over his shoulder.  My friend and his friend started running down the stairs.

My friend was knocked unconcious by falling concrete, his friend dragged him out of the way.  The firefigher and the old man disappered never to be seen again.

But you know what?  We need to understand why they hate us and try our best to appease them.  It's wrong to fight back--we should turn the other cheek.

Or maybe we should nuke them back to the stone age.

I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life

[quote=babybear]I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life [/quote]

Well we could just adopt their lifestyle--it was typical in 1217 or sometime around then.

It never fails to amaze me  how many weaklings there are in this country--whining every time the US kicks butt and takes names.

We're involved in World War Three--it's just that until the French surrender the whining set won't admit it.

[quote=Indyone]

Hey, speaking of conspiracies, have any of you seen this one?

http://www.flight93crash.com/

I found myself thinking, "well, so what if they did."  In light of everything else going down, it would make sense to shoot down a threat.  I don't necessarily believe this stuff, but it makes for interesting reading.  If any of you have a "debunking" site, I'd be obliged if you could post it...

[/quote]

The FLT 93 shoot down theories have all been debunked. For example the mysterious small jet plane seen flying over the crash site shortly after the crash, identified by conspiracy theorist as an F16, was a Falcon 20 corporate jet whose crew witnessed the crash and broke off an approach to a nearby airport to investigate. The jet engines and other parts reported to be found miles away were found within a few hundred feet of the impact crator. Body parts found in a lake eight miles away, untrue. Small aircraft parts, paper and plastic bits found in a lake directly down wind from the crash site, true. Most of this debris, theory has it, was blown skyward by the intial explosion and then carried down wind by the wind. ETC. ETC. ETC.

Wanting to find the truth myself, I did a lot of reading about the conspiracy theories. I'm satisfied that Flt 93 wasn't shot down. As a former pilot with a huge interest in accident prevention, I've studied many NTSB crash reports. To me, many of the characteristics surrounding the FLT 93 crash are consistant with loss of control.

As for the downing of the twin towers I'm not so sure. Logic tells me it would be impossible to have a conspiracy large enough to get this done. And for what motive? Yet, there are many unanwered questions about why the towers fell. For example, in 1991 a fire started in the office directly below my Paine Webber office in Philly. We were on the 23rd floor. The fire burned for about 15 hours taking out floors 15 to 30 of a 35 story buiding. No collapse. While the intial explosion in the WTC was white hot, I buy the theory that most of the jet fuel was exausted in the first 30 minutes. That left an ordinary office fire. Certainly hot enough to eventually bring the towers down. Yet, 3 Meridian lasted over 15 hours and didn't collapse. WTC collapsed in less than two hours. Also, the core of the WTC was made up of ordinary steel girder construction, just like most office buildings. This core was a large area, almost half of the one acre foot print of each building. Why, especially for the south tower, where this core was reported to mostly undamaged, did it collapse? And collapse so cleanly, steel girder core and all. So, it's problematic for me.

I know someone who witnessed the plane crash into the Pentagon. So no problem with that one.

Where most of the conspiracy theorist lose me is when they say planes didn't fly into the WTC. We've got that much on film.

The difference between the WTC and an ordinary office fire is that the planes not only fueled the fires--their impact weakened the structures themselves.

We'll never know how many of the supporting beams were destroyed by the impacts--but it's crazy to conclude that none were.  So as the fires got started there the buildings were already primed to fall--add intense heat, even for only a short while, and a steel beam that is supporting tons of weight above it will start to yield.

Just like dominoes, once it got started it just kept going.

I lost good friends that day--one of them I didn't know was gone until I was wandering through Union Square, still in shock, and saw his picture hanging there with the hundreds of others.

Fifty six year old men are not supposed to cry--certainly not in public, but there are reasons to shove that rule aside.

[quote=tjc45]

As for the downing of the twin towers I'm not so sure. Logic tells me it would be impossible to have a conspiracy large enough to get this done. And for what motive? Yet, there are many unanwered questions about why the towers fell. [/quote]

I think when the specific unique structure of the WTC, the danage done by the impact and fires and the pancaking action, there really aren't any questions left.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

The difference between the WTC and an ordinary office fire is that the planes not only fueled the fires--their impact weakened the structures themselves.

We'll never know how many of the supporting beams were destroyed by the impacts--but it's crazy to conclude that none were.  So as the fires got started there the buildings were already primed to fall--add intense heat, even for only a short while, and a steel beam that is supporting tons of weight above it will start to yield.

Just like dominoes, once it got started it just kept going.

I lost good friends that day--one of them I didn't know was gone until I was wandering through Union Square, still in shock, and saw his picture hanging there with the hundreds of others.

Fifty six year old men are not supposed to cry--certainly not in public, but there are reasons to shove that rule aside.

[/quote]

That was a tough day. Even for 56 year old men. Most of cried.

I don't disagree, on the collapse. it's more like I'm insettled. Even structural engineers can't agree as to exactly how and why the towers fell so rapidly and so cleanly. The inner core, almost half an acre of vertically aligned space, did not contain the floor after floor 4 inch concrete floors that officially caused the pancaking.. Much of the core was hollow, containing vertical shafts for elevators and utilities. The suspect trusses that broke lose triggering the collapse were tabbed to these core girders. So, if the fires were hot enough to weaken the trusses to a point that the welds failed on the outer tube wall, how is it that the welds holding the trusses to the inner core were strong enough, even though heat damaged, to drag down a half acre of steel girder construction as strong as any in the world? Weak enough to break, strong enough to bring the tower down? Like I said, it's a nagging little thing. especially with the south tower, where reportedly, the plane all but missed the core. With the Tube type construction of the towers, once the link to the core was lost, the towers were doomed. That's officially what happened. Yet, for the buildings to have fallen the way they did, asks me to believe that those connections were lost all the way around each building at the same time. If a connection was lost on the most damaged side, why didn't that side just fall away, or fall away first? I, like everyone else, am left to accept the official version of events. Yet, 3 Meridian stood until about three years ago when the city finally had it demolished. Had the inner core of each WTC tower been a stand alone building, their foot prints would have been larger than 3 Meridian. Three Meridian stood for 12 years after the largest office building fire in U.S. history. The WTC, with a much more robust steel girder construction lasted one and a half hours. Still problematic for me.

I guess wherever there is tragedy, there will be conspiracy theorists.  JFK was been dead for over 40 years and yet there are still people arguing about who really killed him.

Thanks tjc for the post.  There's still a part of me that would have been almost pleased to hear that an F-16 had shot flight 93 down...that would certainly act as a potential deterrent for future nutjobs.  Of course, I'm saddened by the innocent loss of life and cheered by the evidence that suggests a lot of bravery on flight 93, whether or not the passengers actually reached the cockpit.  In the end, the result was the same as if they did.  Had I been on that plane, and been unable to get into the cockpit, I would have been rooting for an F-16 with malevolent intentions to show up and do what comes naturally.

I'll definitely catch WTC...occasionally, we need to be reminded why we've commenced two military actions in the middle east since 9/11 and I don't believe that Michael Moore is the one to do it...I refuse to pollute my mind with that man's trash.

Are you saying that you are one of those who think that somebody placed explosive charges in the various buildings and were simply waiting for a "golden opportunity" to trigger those charges and bring the buildings down?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

I think when the specific unique structure of the WTC, the danage done by the impact and fires and the pancaking action,

[/quote]

If the core of the South tower hadn't fallen so cleanly and so soon I'd be right there with you. And I am right there with you for the most part.The weak link in the collapse scenerio were the steel tabs that the floor trusses were connected to. As these trusses sagged they broke loose from the outer tube wall. They broke loose at the the tabs. So the failed tabs get fingered as the cause of the collapse. Yet, looking down at each buildng, the foot print of each building was made up of a very strong steel girder inner core surrounded by concrete floor space anchored by the tube wall. This inner core was very much a building in a building. The inner core, from a weight bearing POV, was mostly hollow. Yet those very same "weak link" steel tabs that were failing in such a way as to disconnect the outer tube wall held on to the inner core as the concrete floors started to pancake, dragging down a 47 column steel inner building in a clean, no girder left standing way. I can't explain that inconsistancy. I buy that the North tower's inner core was severely compromised by the plane. Not so for the South tower. It causes me to question how this happened. Understand, I'm not buying into any theories, I just don't get it.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Are you saying that you are one of those who think that somebody placed explosive charges in the various buildings and were simply waiting for a "golden opportunity" to trigger those charges and bring the buildings down?

[/quote]

Absolutey not. I just don't understand how a steel tab on one end of a steel truss can be weak enough to break causing a catastrophic collapse while a similar tab at the other end of that very same truss can be strong enough to drag down the steel girder it's connected to. Let alone all the steel girders that girder is welded to. Yet, this is what happened? Apparently, as there is no other plausable answer. 

Something else to remember is that the buildings were built in New York.  You may not believe this but everybody is not honest and ever since it happened there have been whispers about short cuts taken--especially as the buldings got taller.

One of the really signficant ones is the talk that the steel was not coated with asbestos as it was supposed to be--that the inspectors began to show signs of being willing to take people's word for things.  By this I'm saying that the talk is that an inspector would show up and instead of actually doing whatever was necessary to see if the steel really was coated they'd simply ask somebody--or perhaps accept a bribe and not even ask or look.

You may recall that there was talk that the impact shook the asbestos off the steel.  Yep, that makes sense--steel coated with asbestos is not going to look like it was never coated as a result of being shaken, or burned. There would always be trace evidence.

Within hours nobody was talking about the bare steel.  Cover up?  I'm certain of it--but I don't count.

Anyway, if there were short cuts with the asbestos whose to say that there were not similar shortcuts with the tabs that held the floor to the inner core--or some other shortcut that would only matter if something that would never happen actually happened.  Like a plane flying into the buidlings.

We'll never know--but if somebody said they'd give me a huge sum of money if I could guess the real problem I'd guess fraud and bribery among the construction companies and unions.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babybear]I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life [/quote]

Well we could just adopt their lifestyle--it was typical in 1217 or sometime around then.

It never fails to amaze me  how many weaklings there are in this country--whining every time the US kicks butt and takes names.

We're involved in World War Three--it's just that until the French surrender the whining set won't admit it.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Something else to remember is that the buildings were built in New York.  You may not believe this but everybody is not honest and ever since it happened there have been whispers about short cuts taken--especially as the buldings got taller.

One of the really signficant ones is the talk that the steel was not coated with asbestos as it was supposed to be--that the inspectors began to show signs of being willing to take people's word for things.  By this I'm saying that the talk is that an inspector would show up and instead of actually doing whatever was necessary to see if the steel really was coated they'd simply ask somebody--or perhaps accept a bribe and not even ask or look.

You may recall that there was talk that the impact shook the asbestos off the steel.  Yep, that makes sense--steel coated with asbestos is not going to look like it was never coated as a result of being shaken, or burned. There would always be trace evidence.

Within hours nobody was talking about the bare steel.  Cover up?  I'm certain of it--but I don't count.

Anyway, if there were short cuts with the asbestos whose to say that there were not similar shortcuts with the tabs that held the floor to the inner core--or some other shortcut that would only matter if something that would never happen actually happened.  Like a plane flying into the buidlings.

We'll never know--but if somebody said they'd give me a huge sum of money if I could guess the real problem I'd guess fraud and bribery among the construction companies and unions.

[/quote]

A sad fact of life that more likely than not played a role.

[quote=tjc45] Yet, for the buildings to have fallen the way they did, asks me to believe that those connections were lost all the way around each building at the same time. If a connection was lost on the most damaged side, why didn't that side just fall away, or fall away first?

Because once one part of the floor was lost, all of it was lost (remember we're talking about a floor that had tons of weight on it from floors above it). Once that happened it collapsed on the floor below it, already weakened, to repeat the porcess. Seriously, I don't see the mystery here.

 Yet, 3 Meridian stood until about three years ago when the city finally had it demolished.

Not the same construction....

The WTC, with a much more robust steel girder construction lasted one and a half hours.

I think you're wrong on calling the WTC a "more robust" structure, since each floor simply hung on its outer edges on the vertical structure. Secondly, 3 Meridian didn't suffer the same damage.

.[/quote]

[quote=tjc45][quote=NASD Newbie]

Are you saying that you are one of those who think that somebody placed explosive charges in the various buildings and were simply waiting for a "golden opportunity" to trigger those charges and bring the buildings down?

[/quote]

Absolutey not. I just don't understand how a steel tab on one end of a steel truss can be weak enough to break causing a catastrophic collapse while a similar tab at the other end of that very same truss can be strong enough to drag down the steel girder it's connected to. Let alone all the steel girders that girder is welded to. Yet, this is what happened? Apparently, as there is no other plausable answer. 

[/quote]

I don't think that's what happened at all. The first floor to collapse simply sagged off of its girder as the floor distorted, pulled free and added its weight to the floor below it. That floor, not designed to bear that added weight, failed. The outer structure, never designed to be stable without the floor hanging between it, and weakened by fire and impact, collapsed (not dragged down by the floor), adding to the velocity of the pancaking floors and the cascade. The inner structure of concrete stairwells and elevators shafts, long ago weakened by burning fuel, collapsed under the weight of the cascading structure.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again, I don’t see the mystery here.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babybear]I had many friends that were directly affected by the attack on the WTC and personally I would go with your second suggestion.  Every time we (the US) have tried to do something positive in that region we have been slapped in the face by it. These fanatics despise us and our way of living and as a nation we must be willing to proactively defend ourselves and our way of life [/quote]

Well we could just adopt their lifestyle--it was typical in 1217 or sometime around then.

It never fails to amaze me  how many weaklings there are in this country--whining every time the US kicks butt and takes names.

We're involved in World War Three--it's just that until the French surrender the whining set won't admit it.

[/quote]

On this count I agree wholeheartedly.

We've tried to make friends.  They've attacked us.  Too many people in this country-especially as you get farther away from New York and D.C.-just don't get it.  We are at war with these people, or at least they are at war with us.  It's been that way for over a decade.  They aren't going to stop attacking us until they win or we obliterate them.
[/quote]

Agreed, and it mystifies me how that element of our society that goes into a deep tizzy over any perceived civil rights infringement here are so uniformly reticent to speak out again our attackers given their agenda to kill every non-believer and their “special treatment” reserved for homosexuals and women who dare attempt to drive or escape the burka.  <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It’s as if their “Blame America First” instincts have come into the ring with their devotion to “rights” that they’ve long professed to have and the “Blame <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />America” side came out a winner via  a K.O. in the first 2 seconds of the first round.

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

Absolutey not. I just don't understand how a steel tab on one end of a steel truss can be weak enough to break causing a catastrophic collapse while a similar tab at the other end of that very same truss can be strong enough to drag down the steel girder it's connected to. Let alone all the steel girders that girder is welded to. Yet, this is what happened? Apparently, as there is no other plausable answer. 

[/quote]

I don't think that's what happened at all. The first floor to collapse simply sagged off of its girder as the floor distorted, pulled free and added its weight to the floor below it. That floor, not designed to bear that added weight, failed. The outer structure, never designed to be stable without the floor hanging between it, and weakened by fire and impact, collapsed (not dragged down by the floor), adding to the velocity of the pancaking floors and the cascade. The inner structure of concrete stairwells and elevators shafts, long ago weakened by burning fuel, collapsed under the weight of the cascading structure.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again, I don’t see the mystery here.

[/quote]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian. it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

There were no inner concrete walls. A fact that probably led to the deaths of hundreds of people who were trapped above the damaged floors. The stairwell walls were made out of gypsum wallboard, just like the stuff in your house. The planes and fires knocked out all the starwells in the North tower and all but one in the South tower. As a sad irony, those flimsy walls allowed several people to escape from an elevator stuck high up in the South tower. They were able to literally claw their way out of an elevator shaft.

Structurally, the inner core was mostly a hollow rectangle of free standing steel girder construction. It was a building in a building. Short of its job of adding integrity to the outside tube wall it wasn't carrying much weight. This inner core was surrounded by concrete floors, but was hollow, giving space for the elevator shafts, starwells, and utilities.  Where there were concrete floors inside the core, they weren't connected to the truss floor system holding up the tube walls.The question is, as the concrete truss floors pancaked in succession, why did it take the hollow core with it? I've asked that question from the moment I first saw this happen. There is a mystery to those who understand the construction of those magnificant buildings. That the inner core collapsed isn't so much a mystery as is the fact that it completely failed, steel girders snapping like match sticks at every floor.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

I remember hearing the story about that guy. I recall it was later found to be untrue. Only a handful of people above the damaged floors escaped the South tower. For those in the North tower it was worse. Noone above the damaged floors got out. All the stairwells were knocked out by the plane or the fires. Reports were there were 300 people at Windows. Wrong day to attend a seminar.

A truly horrific day.

My mother died in 1998. She knew she was facing the end. One of her final wishes was to go to the World Trade Center. She loved New York City and what better way to see all of it. We went and had a great day. She died a short time later. Even though the pictures I took of her that day on the south tower's observation deck are among the last ever taken of her I can't look at them.

[quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote] [/quote]

Actually I meant three. The building was always numbered 3. 3 Girard plaza, then 3 Mellon Plaza and finally 3 Meridian. Maybe they did change the number, I worked there but it was a long time ago and I still call it 3 Mellon Plaza. Anyway,it's the steel frame construction of the WTC core that has everyone asking questions. It wasn't some lame new construction technique. The core was very strong. Strong enough, some believe to have withstood to some degree the concrete floors pancaking around it. And that's the point, the pancaking took place around the core, not on top of it. The core wasn't filled with concrete ladened floors weighing something like 2400 lbs per yard. The core should have held up, at least to some degree. At least that's what some believe.

I can sleep at nite with the official version. It's just nagging. How did those pancaking floors break, not bend and twist, 47, 1100 foot long steel columns, like tooth picks about every 20 feet or so. Ok, all strutural integrity was lost when the floors started to go and the core went down.  Why no twisting? Why no long pieces of steel? There were a few longer pieces, about sixty feet or so but nothing relative in size was found. This was unexpected.

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed. The fire was a conventional office building fire, without fuel fueled high temps. The building had an achilles heal. From the day it was built it was weaker than many similar buildings of its size. That is, builders had to contruct an unusual steel girder frame around an obsticle at one end of the building. I believe that obsticle was a ConED transformer and an oil tank. While this construction didn't compromise its day to day integrity,when burning it relatively quickly weakened the struture to the point of no return. When viewing its collapse you can clearly see the building collapse from its weak end to its strong end. The point is, it was a conventional fire, and the building collapsed the way strutural engineers would have predicted, one end drag down by the other. It didn't collapse it the flat pancake fashion of the twin towers.  Once down, the building presented no surprises. It was a mass of twisted girders, some several hundred feet long. Nothing like the twin towers wreckage. Why, is this? Most of the twin tower steel wasn't affected by heat or fire. yet it still snapped as if it had been cut by a torch, floor after floor after floor. That's the mystery. It doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy. It means that there is some physics invovled in these large buildings that we don't understand and because of that we don't have the whole twin towers story.

The steel core collapse gives the conspiracy theorist something to hang onto. And that's a good point. The only rational explanation that I can believe is the official version. But maybe asking questions isn't a bad thing. Just because we can't imagine it doesn't make something true or untrue. There is that pesky "you don't know what you don't know" level of knowledge (verus you know what you know and you know what you don't know). So who knows? Maybe the questions will lead to some new understanding.

[quote=tjc45][quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote] [/quote]

Actually I meant three. The building was always numbered 3. 3 Girard plaza, then 3 Mellon Plaza and finally 3 Meridian. Maybe they did change the number, I worked there but it was a long time ago and I still call it 3 Mellon Plaza.

I ask because all the reports refer to it as "1 Meridian Plaza".

Anyway,it's the steel frame construction of the WTC core that has everyone asking questions.

"Everyone"? Kind'a a stretch, eh?

 It wasn't some lame new construction technique. The core was very strong. Strong enough, some believe to have withstood to some degree the concrete floors pancaking around it.

Obviously that's not the majority opinion, and I find the comparison of the inner core, damaged by the planes, the fuel, explosions and eventually the weight of the outer shell to Meridian survival unconvincing.

And that's the point, the pancaking took place around the core, not on top of it. The core wasn't filled with concrete ladened floors weighing something like 2400 lbs per yard. The core should have held up, at least to some degree. At least that's what some believe.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

 Why no twisting? Why no long pieces of steel?

Look at the site on Staten Island, there was plenty of long, twisted inner core pieces. This sounds like the "the plane vaporized"....

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

 It means that there is some physics invovled in these large buildings that we don't understand and because of that we don't have the whole twin towers story.

That I can buy. It isn't as if engineers haven't been surprised before. There are plenty of bridge collapses and the KC walkway failure to prove that. OTOH, I'm not sure what you mean by "whole twin towers story".

The steel core collapse gives the conspiracy theorist something to hang onto.

They don't need anything to hang on to. Look what they do with the Pentagon attack even though 200 witnesses saw a 757 hit it.

And that's a good point. The only rational explanation that I can believe is the official version. But maybe asking questions isn't a bad thing.

So long as they're questions about the phyics of large buildings that we don't understand. When they turn in to innocent but uninformed people coming to believe we were attacked by our own gov't, well, that's very, very destructive.

[quote=tjc45][quote=NASD Newbie]

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

I remember hearing the story about that guy. I recall it was later found to be untrue. Only a handful of people above the damaged floors escaped the South tower. For those in the North tower it was worse. Noone above the damaged floors got out. All the stairwells were knocked out by the plane or the fires. Reports were there were 300 people at Windows. Wrong day to attend a seminar.

A truly horrific day.

My mother died in 1998. She knew she was facing the end. One of her final wishes was to go to the World Trade Center. She loved New York City and what better way to see all of it. We went and had a great day. She died a short time later. Even though the pictures I took of her that day on the south tower's observation deck are among the last ever taken of her I can't look at them.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=tjc45][quote=NASD Newbie]

Do any of you remember hearing the rumor that some guy rode the building down like a surfer might ride a wave?

What a strange day it was--especially for those of who were so close.

I belonged to The Windows on The World breakfast club--you got a discount, it was the thing to do if you worked in the area.  Anyway I had breakfast there on both Wednesday and Friday of the week before and had planned to be there on Thursday the 13th.

Everybody who was there died--patrons and staff.  A lot of good people--and a few SOBs too, no doubt.

[/quote]

I remember hearing the story about that guy. I recall it was later found to be untrue. Only a handful of people above the damaged floors escaped the South tower. For those in the North tower it was worse. Noone above the damaged floors got out. All the stairwells were knocked out by the plane or the fires. Reports were there were 300 people at Windows. Wrong day to attend a seminar.

A truly horrific day.

My mother died in 1998. She knew she was facing the end. One of her final wishes was to go to the World Trade Center. She loved New York City and what better way to see all of it. We went and had a great day. She died a short time later. Even though the pictures I took of her that day on the south tower's observation deck are among the last ever taken of her I can't look at them.

[/quote]

I have a picture just like that taken with my brother, sister-in-law, nieces and nephew, and I with my 1 yr old daughter in a back pack.  It was taken summer '01 on the observation deck.  Weird to remember being there that recently.  The obervation deck was one of my favorite places in all of NYC!
[/quote]

Same here. I have similar pictures I can't look at and I always made it a point to hit WOW and the Bar on top of the world on every visit.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45][quote=mikebutler222][quote=tjc45]

First, the inner core of the WTC was build exactly the same as 3 Meridian.

1 Meridian (you did mean 1, right) didn't suffer the impact the WTC did, or the massive wave of burning jet fuel, or the explosions caused by the same. There's no reason to suspect it might fail in the same way.

it was good old girder frame construction. That it collapsed as cleanly and neatly as it did, is what's got people asking questions.

I haven't seen those questions, at least not ones from serious people. The fact that an entire building pancaked down on the "building within a building"  (not to mention the dripping jet fuel and the resulting exlosions) caused it to collapse. As I keep saying, I don't see a mystery and I can't imagine a rational alternative. Furthermore, is it really surprising that when something like a building collapse of this nature happens, which as never happened before, some unexpected things are a part of it?

[/quote] [/quote]

Actually I meant three. The building was always numbered 3. 3 Girard plaza, then 3 Mellon Plaza and finally 3 Meridian. Maybe they did change the number, I worked there but it was a long time ago and I still call it 3 Mellon Plaza.

I ask because all the reports refer to it as "1 Meridian Plaza"

I worked in that building for years. Over that time period it changed ownership twice. While the name changed the number remained 3. At least that's the way i remember it.

Anyway,it's the steel frame construction of the WTC core that has everyone asking questions.

"Everyone"? Kind'a a stretch, eh?

Everyone as in everyone who is asking questions not everyone on the planet. I thought this was self explanatory

 It wasn't some lame new construction technique. The core was very strong. Strong enough, some believe to have withstood to some degree the concrete floors pancaking around it.

Obviously that's not the majority opinion, and I find the comparison of the inner core, damaged by the planes, the fuel, explosions and eventually the weight of the outer shell to Meridian survival unconvincing.

The comparison is absolutely valid. Meridian burned for 19 hours and is the worst high rise fire in U.S. history. It's steel frame was not as large or as heavily built as the very same steel frame construction used in the twin towers. As a percentage, the compromised struture of Meridian was much larger than the WTC, something over 30% VS less than 10% with the towers. Time is the biggest factor in high rise fires. While it's possible that the Meridan fire was not as hot as the trade center fire, it burned for almost a day. Still, Meridian, sagging floors, twisted support girders and all did not collapse. And, by the way, Meridian was twisted by the heat. Prior to 9/11 no high rise steel frame tower had collapsed from fire damage.

To just accept that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by a plane is akin to burying one's head in the sand. Accepting that it was a hot fuel fire that doomed the towers is stiil conjecture. It's our best guess. No question that the fire melted the truss floor system causing the tube wall to collapse. Yet, there are those who believe the fires were either not hot enough, or didn't burn long enough to compromise the much stronger steel girder core frame. Obviously, the frame collapsed. Either I can blindly accept that burning jet fuel weakened it to a point of collapse or I can reject conventional wisdom and ask why. I'm in the very small camp of skeptics who don't believe in any conspiracy theories, yet question the official version of events.

And that's the point, the pancaking took place around the core, not on top of it. The core wasn't filled with concrete ladened floors weighing something like 2400 lbs per yard. The core should have held up, at least to some degree. At least that's what some believe.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

That both buildings pancaked at all is what raises questions. Neither building layed over on its side. Certainly the pancaking floors did compromise the inner core. The questions are how and why?

As for minority opinion: the majority opinion is "Look man, those buildings were each hit by a freaking 767. Of course they collapsed." Excuse me if that's not good enough for me.

 Why no twisting? Why no long pieces of steel?

Look at the site on Staten Island, there was plenty of long, twisted inner core pieces. This sounds like the "the plane vaporized"....

Didn't you hear, the government had a secret steel twisting machine in a large building on site. Seriously, nothing longer than about 60 feet was found. Surprising considering that most of the 47 columns holding each building up were totally undamaged within a few floors below the impact area. And yes, I'm aware that there were fires on lower floors caused by debris and dripping jetA. Nothing overly hot though.

Twisting as in the steel frame twisted laying the building on its side, didn't happen. Yet, Seven twisted. Hmmm? Lots of physics involved here.

A plane vaporized?

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

Had the fireman not been pulled back after the collapse of the towers and had they been allowed to fight the fire, the original Seven would be standing today. It was compromised by its construction. The point is it collapsed in a conventional way, so to speak, no surprises, no pancake. The building went over sideways leaving steel girders hundreds of feet long. Lots of twisting. A real mess to cut up and cart away. Conspiracy theorist point the expected wreckage of this building as opposed to the complete surprise found at the twin towers wreckage. Seven was what you get when a big building collapses. The towers were piles of dust and broken concrete. Had they been imploded, it would have been a tall order for any pro to do a better job of putting down those buildings within their own foot prints. Like I said, not expected.

 It means that there is some physics invovled in these large buildings that we don't understand and because of that we don't have the whole twin towers story.

That I can buy. It isn't as if engineers haven't been surprised before. There are plenty of bridge collapses and the KC walkway failure to prove that. OTOH, I'm not sure what you mean by "whole twin towers story".

I mean we can't adaquately explain all the reasons that these buildings collapsed.

The steel core collapse gives the conspiracy theorist something to hang onto.

They don't need anything to hang on to. Look what they do with the Pentagon attack even though 200 witnesses saw a 757 hit it.

Yeah, it gets ridiculous doesn't it?

And that's a good point. The only rational explanation that I can believe is the official version. But maybe asking questions isn't a bad thing.

So long as they're questions about the phyics of large buildings that we don't understand. When they turn in to innocent but uninformed people coming to believe we were attacked by our own gov't, well, that's very, very destructive.

I think questioning government is healthy.  Bringing these towers down was a conspiracy. Just not our conspiracy.

The comparison is absolutely valid. <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Meridian burned for 19 hours and is the worst high rise fire in U.S. history.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The differences in the nature of the damage are simply too great. Meridian wasn’t struck by a plane flying at 550 mph, it didn’t have another building surrounding it that collapsed on it, the fire temperatures varied greatly with the JP fuel fires at the WTC being much, much hotter, Meridian didn’t suffer any secondary explosions from burning fuel.

Prior to 9/11 no high rise steel frame tower had collapsed from fire damage.

The WTC didn’t collapse due solely to fire damage, so the streak continues.

To just accept that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by a plane…

I haven’t heard anyone say that. What’s been said is that the impact of the plane was a contributing factor not present in the incidents the WTC collapse is being compared to.

Yet, there are those who believe the fires were either not hot enough, or didn't burn long enough to compromise the much stronger steel girder core frame.

Those are a minority. Reports I’ve read say that the heat involved was enough to reduce the strength of the core elements by at least 50%, not to mention the effects of the secondary explosions reported down elevator shafts. Add to that weakened structure the weight of the outer building and the collapse isn’t a mystery, it’s a horrible first of a kind.

 Either I can blindly accept that burning jet fuel weakened it to a point of collapse or I can reject conventional wisdom and ask why.

You can certainly ask why, but the answer will continue to return to the effects of a reduction in strength on the order of 50% due to a jet fuel flamed fire and those secondary explosions.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

That both buildings pancaked at all is what raises questions.

I feel those questions have been answered with the effects mentioned above.

As for minority opinion: the majority opinion is "Look man, those buildings were each hit by a freaking 767. Of course they collapsed." Excuse me if that's not good enough for me.

I don’t think that’s exactly the language used by the engineers that reviewed the facts  ;)

Lots of physics involved here.

No doubt about that.

A plane vaporized?

That’s the line the “Loose Nuts” guys use about the 757 that hit the Pentagon (despite the pieces found everywhere) and against that distortion of the facts they overlay other issues to create something from nothing.

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

Had the fireman not been pulled back after the collapse of the towers and had they been allowed to fight the fire, the original Seven would be standing today.

That’s not my recollection. The fires at seven, fueled by diesel hadn’t been fought to any extent (again, IIRC, the firefighters, overwhelmed elsewhere anyway, weren’t aware the fires in Seven with being internally fueled) AND falling debris from the towers compromised that corner you mentioned.

Seven was what you get when a big building collapses. The towers were piles of dust and broken concrete.

That’s because Seven collapsed from the bottom where it was compromised, the towers, weakened most in higher floors began to collapse there first.

Like I said, not expected.

And like I said, engineers, whether they like to admit it or not, have seen unexpected and unanticipated things before.

I think questioning government is healthy. 

I think we’ve seen that there’s a point where it isn’t, where it borders on delusional.

Bringing these towers down was a conspiracy. Just not our conspiracy.

A conspiracy of heretofore unseen physics at work? 

[quote=mikebutler222]

The comparison is absolutely valid. <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Meridian burned for 19 hours and is the worst high rise fire in U.S. history.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The differences in the nature of the damage are simply too great. Meridian wasn’t struck by a plane flying at 550 mph, it didn’t have another building surrounding it that collapsed on it, the fire temperatures varied greatly with the JP fuel fires at the WTC being much, much hotter, Meridian didn’t suffer any secondary explosions from burning fuel.

Prior to 9/11 no high rise steel frame tower had collapsed from fire damage.

The WTC didn’t collapse due solely to fire damage, so the streak continues.

To just accept that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by a plane…

I haven’t heard anyone say that. What’s been said is that the impact of the plane was a contributing factor not present in the incidents the WTC collapse is being compared to.

Yet, there are those who believe the fires were either not hot enough, or didn't burn long enough to compromise the much stronger steel girder core frame.

Those are a minority. Reports I’ve read say that the heat involved was enough to reduce the strength of the core elements by at least 50%, not to mention the effects of the secondary explosions reported down elevator shafts. Add to that weakened structure the weight of the outer building and the collapse isn’t a mystery, it’s a horrible first of a kind.

 Either I can blindly accept that burning jet fuel weakened it to a point of collapse or I can reject conventional wisdom and ask why.

You can certainly ask why, but the answer will continue to return to the effects of a reduction in strength on the order of 50% due to a jet fuel flamed fire and those secondary explosions.

Again, that's a minority opinion and the pancaking didn't happen with surgical precision, simply surrounding but not impacting the inner shell.

That both buildings pancaked at all is what raises questions.

I feel those questions have been answered with the effects mentioned above.

As for minority opinion: the majority opinion is "Look man, those buildings were each hit by a freaking 767. Of course they collapsed." Excuse me if that's not good enough for me.

I don’t think that’s exactly the language used by the engineers that reviewed the facts  ;)

Lots of physics involved here.

No doubt about that.

A plane vaporized?

That’s the line the “Loose Nuts” guys use about the 757 that hit the Pentagon (despite the pieces found everywhere) and against that distortion of the facts they overlay other issues to create something from nothing.

Adding to the mix is this, Seven World Trade Center. Seven WTC was the 47 story building that collapsed around 5pm on 9/11. It was hit by flying debris, caught fire and burned, uncontrolled until it collapsed.

It was also compromised at the foundation by pieces of the WTC cutting out a large corner of the building. Add to that the diesel fuel stored there that burned for hours and you get a collapse. Interesting, but nothing to fuel anything but conspiracy theories.

Had the fireman not been pulled back after the collapse of the towers and had they been allowed to fight the fire, the original Seven would be standing today.

That’s not my recollection. The fires at seven, fueled by diesel hadn’t been fought to any extent (again, IIRC, the firefighters, overwhelmed elsewhere anyway, weren’t aware the fires in Seven with being internally fueled) AND falling debris from the towers compromised that corner you mentioned.

Seven was what you get when a big building collapses. The towers were piles of dust and broken concrete.

That’s because Seven collapsed from the bottom where it was compromised, the towers, weakened most in higher floors began to collapse there first.

Like I said, not expected.

And like I said, engineers, whether they like to admit it or not, have seen unexpected and unanticipated things before.

I think questioning government is healthy. 

I think we’ve seen that there’s a point where it isn’t, where it borders on delusional.

Bringing these towers down was a conspiracy. Just not our conspiracy.

A conspiracy of heretofore unseen physics at work? 

[/quote]

ALL WRONG

JUST KIDDING!

Good discussion.

Have a great weekend.