View Full Version : WTC7 again.
I was just wondering what the 9/11 sceptics made of the new footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Fartic les%2Ffebruary2007%2F260207building7%2Ehtm) which has surfaced of a BBC reporter describing the collapse of WTC7 in a live broadcast at 4:57pm EST when the building didn't collapse till 5:20pm EST and with WTC7 clearly still visible behind her.
Excuse my ignorance Fred, but someone who is not that familiar with the NYC skyline (although I’ve been there a couple fo times) cannot deduce much from this. I watched the report (all 7 mins 15 secs of it) and there were no times quoted or shown on the screen so I can’t ascertain when they are meant to be saying anything fell. They also refer to the Sallaman Brothers building (??) Is that WTC7?
For a mere mortal like myself, I must admit to finding the footage boring in the extreme and hardly worthy of watching.
Excuse my ignorance Fred, but someone who is not that familiar with the NYC skyline (although I’ve been there a couple fo times) cannot deduce much from this. I watched the report (all 7 mins 15 secs of it) and there were no times quoted or shown on the screen so I can’t ascertain when they are meant to be saying anything fell. They also refer to the Sallaman Brothers building (??) Is that WTC7?
For a mere mortal like myself, I must admit to finding the footage boring in the extreme and hardly worthy of watching.
Yes the Sallaman Brothers building was WTC7.
When she moves aside the big oblong building with a few puffs of smoke rising from it right behind the ruins of the two towers is WTC7. If the transmission hadn't been conveniently lost it would have collapsed in around 10 minutes.
The time is taken from the timestamp of the original mpeg which is available (http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg) if you want to check it for yourself, it's more than a one gig download though, it covers from 4:54 PM to 5:36 PM.
Apologies now if this has been posted before - attached is a link to a film which highlights some of the "conspiracy theories" regarding 911. It is one and a half hours long but boy I was transfixed!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
I was just wondering what the 9/11 sceptics made of the new footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Fartic les%2Ffebruary2007%2F260207building7%2Ehtm) which has surfaced of a BBC reporter describing the collapse of WTC7 in a live broadcast at 4:57pm EST when the building didn't collapse till 5:20pm EST and with WTC7 clearly still visible behind her.
Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.
1. The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11.
Could this be a facsimile of real events?:confused
Been counting the days now in anticipation of Fred and his self thinking cronies bringing this back to the fore front.
Thanks Fred, I think I can now go into hibernation safely, with no need for any sedative.
Yawnnnn its working already[lol]
I would think the clock is wrong:roll:
I would think the clock is wrong:roll:
I don't think the clock matters. The reporter is clearly describing the collapse of the building when the building was clearly visible in the background behind her. The only way that could happen is if someone somewhere knew for definite that that building was going to collapse.
It's like the two business men talking and one says "sorry to hear about your warehouse burning down" and the other one says "Shhhh...that's next week".
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
BBC World is, and has been for years, the BBC TV news service available abroad on satellite. Watched by many an expat and holidaymaker alike!
Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.
1. The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11.
Could this be a facsimile of real events?:confused
A conspiracy you mean?
All of this 9/11 bunkum was poo pooed the other week on the conspiracy programme on the TV.
All explained away but still the conspiracy theorists refuse to believe the facts - they are so desparate for a hidden government plot to explain 9/11.
Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?
In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes.
The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, its collapse was barely reported.
WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others.
Sceptics of the official account, including those at Scholars for 9/11 Truth argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.
The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their interim report found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7.
This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down.
With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.
In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate.
That kid (Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change) who made the film looked a little lost for words as the reporter put some salient points to him about his allegations of conspiracy. Guess holes in his theory are starting to appear.
And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......
All of this 9/11 bunkum was poo pooed the other week on the conspiracy programme on the TV.
All explained away but still the conspiracy theorists refuse to believe the facts - they are so desparate for a hidden government plot to explain 9/11.
That kid (Dylan Avery, director of the hugely popular internet film Loose Change) who made the film looked a little lost for words as the reporter put some salient points to him about his allegations of conspiracy. Guess holes in his theory are starting to appear.
And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......Too many holes in the official speil to be adequately 'explained away'.
There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.
So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ ..
So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ ..
Exactly where in my statement did I suggest such a thing, Mmmm, nowhere.
The hahaha's are pretty imature by the way.
There is no doubt that money was made on the back of that tragedy, strong evidence suggests that wtc7 was pulled and the situation used to the advantage of larry silverstien.
And if you didn't watch it - tough. I'm not getting dragged into another fredthread......
Just wondered if someone could explain to me how the BBC could report that something had happened 20 minutes before it happened that's all.
So the US government slaughtered 3000 of it's own citizens just so that some rich tycoon could make an insurance claim on a building.......
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........ ..
No, a small but powerful section of the US government allowed 3000 of it's own citizens to be slaughtered so that America could take control of the Middle East and form a Global American Empire, "Pax Americana" they called it when they were planning it in the 1990s. Some rich tycoons with very close connections to those people took advantage of the situation to make a lot of money.
Could the confusion over the time be on account that BBC World might be using EST instead of British Summer time?:confused Or something like that??
Exactly where in my statement did I suggest such a thing, Mmmm, nowhere.
Mmmmm, maybe here:
There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.
No doubt whatsoever? Where do you get that degree of certainty from?
The hahaha's are pretty imature by the way.
No more or less immature than the mindset of the conspiracy theorists...
here is no doubt that money was made on the back of that tragedy, strong evidence suggests that wtc7 was pulled and the situation used to the advantage of larry silverstien.
Strong evidence WTC 7 was pulled?
You mean this evidence?
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
Just as every court has a jester, every circus a clown, every village an idiot it is reasonable to expect that every forum has it's conspiracy theorist(s)....
Something has been bugging me about that clip of film.
1. The anchorman is instantly recognisable but his looks are quite contemporary.
2. I can't find Jane Stanley in any contemporary BBC news reports ~2001 on Google.
3. The logo 'BBC World' is unknown to me, BBC News 24 would be a different matter.
4. The tone, mood, pace and language of reporting is different to that what I remember on 9/11.
Could this be a facsimile of real events?:confused
Yes, BBC World is the international BBC on satellite as someone else has said.
Then consider how the likes of the weather forecast is transmitted:
The presenter is not in front of the forecast - you will often have seen them outside. They are just superimposed electronically.
You could even do it on a PC with the likes of Ulead's Visual Studio 10 program, which costs about 50 quid.
JimBews
Just wondered if someone could explain to me how the BBC could report that something had happened 20 minutes before it happened that's all.
Is the presenter standing in front of a window, or is she in front of a blue screen with footage being played behind her? The obvious explanation would be that the footage shown is delayed...maybe because the BBC didnt want anything being shown live as happened when the 2nd tower was hit. As another poster mentioned, the BBC Conspiracy programme answered a lot of the questions the some people seem to have about the events of that day.
Kaishowing
28-Feb-07, 14:56
A conspiracy you mean?
If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.
I'm not saying if the clip is genuine or not, just that the days of 'the camera never lies' are far far behind us.
'Conspiracy' sounds so sinister, the definition from the dictionary is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons....where as hoax has a definition of: something intended to deceive or defraud.
Both words mean the same thing in broad terms, but each conjours up a very different image in the mind.
It's tough for conspiracy theorists not to go to town over 9/11 though, after the US authorities gave them so much ammunition by handling the entire episode with such incompetence. Add to that George W Gump as president, and you have theories coming from everyone and their brother!
Mind you, when you still have people claiming that 95 years ago the sinking of the Titanic was an elaborate conspiracy, then you realise that any distaster will have people willing to read far more into events than that's actually there.
Even supposing the theorists are correct.....have ANY of these major events ever been proven to be true conspiracy's?
I'm not talking about the joke stuff like the alien autopsy or Hitler's diaries, or even The Piltdown Man....But any of the BIG events??
Given the greedy nature of the global media at the moment, I would have thought that any scrap of REAL proof that would increase readership or boost ratings on TV would have been beamed around the world by now.
The best two at giving the public new possibilities to think about in recent years has to be Oliver Stone and Michael Moore.
Pehaps that's the good things about conspiracy theorists...They make us look at things in a different way, even if only to point out how wrong we think they are.:)
Quite uncalled for I would've thought... especially from a moderator?
roy,
Here we go again - the old (and tired) issue of "you're not allowed to post because you have the word Moderator under your name" raises it's head again.
Last time I looked I was still a member of these forums and therefore free to post within the forum rules.
If I see a post which breaks forum rules or needs moderating then I will put my Mod hat on and deal.
I am entitled to my opinion and I will continue to post that opinion to whichever thread I wish. Be it adding to the thread about chloramine or the proliferation of wind farms. I have as much right to contribute to the discussion of topics as you or fred or anyone.
As long as I don't directly insult or abuse a member I cannot see the problem with my posts - I was the one being called "imature"(sic)...
On the video, the Empire state building is on the left and in the background and the highlighted building that we are led to believe is WTC7 is on the centre right but closer to the camera than the Empire state building. This makes me think that the clip was shot to the south of Ground zero. The smoke is clearly blowing in front of the ESB and behind the highlighted building.
However, all news reels that I have seen show the smoke blowing in a south easterly direction rather than the clip's westerly direction. Plus the smoke plume is much thicker and bigger on other footage than on this clip.
Also, is it me but can I see the stumps of two buildings to the left of the highlighted building?
If you substitute the word 'conspiracy' for hoax, then I think it becomes far more believable, especially when you consider how sophisticated image manipulation has become in the last 5 or 10 years, even giving the general public the ability to skew perceptions any way they wish.
Well the hoax would have to involve a lot of people, the firm who owns the archive server that the footage has been sitting on would have to be involved, then the people who found the footage and the people who authenticated it and verified the timestamp. Starting to sound like a conspiracy to me.
Mad Pict,
I go along with your theory, more than the conspiracy theory of Fred and his cronies.
And keep posting MP, you have every right to express your sensible opinions (no matter if you are a Moderator), as well as the IMO crackpots in here
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.
Thanks Golach - I fully intend to keep posting.
BTW if you are interested (and for anyone else who feels the CTs are spouting twaddle) the WTC7 quote came from here -
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html
Is the presenter standing in front of a window, or is she in front of a blue screen with footage being played behind her? The obvious explanation would be that the footage shown is delayed...maybe because the BBC didnt want anything being shown live as happened when the 2nd tower was hit. As another poster mentioned, the BBC Conspiracy programme answered a lot of the questions the some people seem to have about the events of that day.
You mean they cherry picked a few of the wilder theories they could disprove and implied therefore all theories other than the official one are wrong.
Forget all the alterative theories, they don't matter, I just keep asking how the official explanation can possibly be true, it defies all logic, no one has explained any of the points I've raised. The speed and symetry of the collapse of the buildings, where the energy came from to melt steel and eject steel girders horizontally, where the energy came from to pulverise concrete.Now where the time machine came from for the BBC to know 20 minutes in advance not only that the building would collapse but how and why, the exact same story that would be the result of the official investigation years later.
You can watch the footage, you can hear the presenter saying how much time had elapsed since the initial attack, you can see the link mysteriously fade just before the building actually did collapse and now we find that the BBCs own archive footage of the event has mysteriously vanished, how convenient.
You mean they cherry picked a few of the wilder theories they could disprove and implied therefore all theories other than the official one are wrong.
Forget all the alterative theories, they don't matter, I just keep asking how the official explanation can possibly be true, it defies all logic, no one has explained any of the points I've raised. The speed and symetry of the collapse of the buildings, where the energy came from to melt steel and eject steel girders horizontally, where the energy came from to pulverise concrete.Now where the time machine came from for the BBC to know 20 minutes in advance not only that the building would collapse but how and why, the exact same story that would be the result of the official investigation years later.
You can watch the footage, you can hear the presenter saying how much time had elapsed since the initial attack, you can see the link mysteriously fade just before the building actually did collapse and now we find that the BBCs own archive footage of the event has mysteriously vanished, how convenient.
The programme didnt cherry pick anything, it went over a lot of different aspects and looked at it from different sides.
The building collapsed because 2 planes with lots of Jet fuel crashed into them; I dont see why that is so hard to believe. A lot of things can not be proved by theory, and I am sure no tests were ever carried out on 100 plus story buildings with planes crashing into them.
Almost all of the ideas that have been thrown up by conspiracy theorists seem to have be easily explained, and the only come back the theorists have is 'but it could'nt have happened like that, it just could'nt'.
Dont hold your breath folks....but whats the betting that in the next few of Fred's posts, he will say its all a Zionist plot, to get us to attack Iraq, I eagerly awaiting his defence of Iran and that contries Nuclear saber rattling
I cannot believe this. Now you are up to it too. The post above is nothing more than trolling. You've contributed nothing to this thread except a pat on Madpicts heid and now you are insulting Fred? Unbelieveable.
I suppose insulting our intelligence is OK then?
there is no reason to be insulting, especially here as a moderator of this forum.
Again that line.
I used the term "fredthread" in a lighthearted, affectionate way.
Am I not allowed to change my mind?
Now you're calling me a troll? Another insult...
...of which all were insulting and aimed at provoking other members which are trying to conversate about the topic of the thread.
All? Total untruth - you show me where I have actually insulted or provoked anyone trying to "conversate"(sic) on this topic?
Conversate? That's not a real word....:p
Kaishowing
28-Feb-07, 16:45
.......and I am sure no tests were ever carried out on 100 plus story buildings with planes crashing into them.
Actually, following an aircraft hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, any new building was designed with this in mind. Couple that with the fact that the Twin Towers were also built to withstand heavy winds gusts at such altitudes, then you begin to see why alot of people just don't accept how they could fall so quickly.
Actually, following an aircraft hitting the Empire State Building in 1945, any new building was designed with this in mind. Couple that with the fact that the Twin Towers were also built to withstand heavy winds gusts at such altitudes, then you begin to see why alot of people just don't accept how they could fall so quickly.
The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it? I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say
Kaishowing
28-Feb-07, 16:58
The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it? I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say
Of course...but don't you think that the test requirements evolved along with aircraft design? As the passenger jet was a common aircraft during the Twin Tower construction, the building design took that into account.
(incidentally it was 767's that hit the buildings)
Check it out yourself - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
I wonder if that building indicated with an arrow as stillstanding is actually the building on Murray/W Broadway?
I have tried to indicate some buildings on this Google Map...
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4819/wtc7zt2.gif
Kaishowing
28-Feb-07, 17:04
This is my main problem. Yes, two large planes with full fuel tanks hit the buildings movin' out at a good speed. Obviously going to be some major damage. But, on the day I was shocked at the time between them getting hit and them collapsing. How long was it under an hour or thereabouts? I also don't see how it is possible they came straight down as they did. Each got hit from the side, that would make one think one side of the building was weaker than the other, surely, we would expect a partial collapse or topple effect?
Thats what shocked me too. They way they fell looked almost exactly like a controlled demolition of any building in a built up area....I would have expected whole city blocks surrounding the area to be destroyed, but it was quite surgical in effect.
I could accept one tower falling like that perhaps, just for the sake of freak luck, but both?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but there are still questions about the tower's collapse that haven't been answered yet.
changilass
28-Feb-07, 17:10
Daft question here:
Would it be possible that they were designed to collapse straight down in order to avoid damaging other buildings close by in the event of something going wrong.
Don't all jump down my throat, its just an idea
webmannie
28-Feb-07, 17:11
Simple answer to this
The BBC have regular 'training' sessions for their presenters, using old news stories which they then have to cover as if it is 'live'. That is why the 'tone' is different and that it is not 'well known' presenters doing it.
changilass
28-Feb-07, 17:17
The simple answers are always the best
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
I find these sorts of reports interesting too
Roy,
Thanks. If you look at the profile of the building in the BBC "report" you will note it has a stepped structure on the roof. If you then look at the aerial shot of the building on Murray/W Broadway you will notice it has a roof top structure also which appears to cover as much roof space. I therefore suggest that the two buildings are one and the same.
Note: The satellite image is skewed due to the pass over the area being staggered, not becuase the buildings are leaning....
Changilass,
The building collapsed as it did due to the floors below giving way under the weight of the collapsing floors above them.
This also accounts for the theory that "explosions" were seen (as puffs of 'smoke') below the segment which was collapsing. It was the force of the pressure wave created by the floors above falling actually ejecting debris out of the side of the building.
Several compacted floors and their contents are stored in a building - the remains are about 8 feet thick....
But then the building rigged with explosives sounds so much more intriguing....
The plane that stuck the Empire State building in 1945 was not a 737 Jet, was it? I am also sure that the Twin Towers were built to withstand heavy winds, but a passenger jet would cause more damage than wind, i would say
The towers were designed to whithstand the impact of the largest passenger plane around at the time which would be comprable to a 737.
The programme didnt cherry pick anything, it went over a lot of different aspects and looked at it from different sides.
OK then, where did enough heat come from to melt steel girders?
I cannot believe this. Now you are up to it too. The post above is nothing more than trolling. You've contributed nothing to this thread except a pat on Madpicts heid and now you are insulting Fred? Unbelieveable.
Yes roy, that is how the clique works, they gang up and sling insults, you'll find your name appearing on other threads as well as they do their best to discredit you because they have no facts to argue with.
I suppose insulting our intelligence is OK then?
Use your inteligence. Look at the facts carefully, don't start with the assumption that the Government of America just wouldn't do a thing like that and then set out to prove it, look at the evidence and see what it is telling you.
OK then, where did enough heat come from to melt steel girders?
The flames from the plane full of fuel crashing into the building. The steel didnt have to melt either; it lost a lot of it's integrity at a far 'cooler' heat than is needed to melt steel, and this caused the girders to buckle and collapse with the weight of the floors above them.
And there is another unfounded allegation, the word "clique", used by a very small minority (the CT Clique?). just because some orgers think the same they are accused of being in the clique!
When they are on the back foot they always pull that word out of their lexicon. There is no clique. Unless it is in your mind....
Why didn't the sprinkler system in WTC 7 extinguish the fires?
The water mains system had been damaged by the collapse of WTC1/2 resulting in the cutting off of the sprinkler system.
"Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7."
j4bberw0ck
28-Feb-07, 20:31
Personally, I'd prefer to know why, if the "mass media" were pre-briefed in some way, or had a badly timed conspiracy-ridden release to work from, they didn't fasten on the much bigger story of WHY they were being briefed on something that hadn't happened?
And why, if it duly happened a few minutes later, they didn't run stories on why they'd been pre-briefed on the collapse?
5.5 years seems a long time for clued up journos to spot something that obvious - and the BBC's anti-Bush credentials would have had them crawling over over a story like that in nothing flat.
Just another hoax.
The flames from the plane full of fuel crashing into the building. The steel didnt have to melt either; it lost a lot of it's integrity at a far 'cooler' heat than is needed to melt steel, and this caused the girders to buckle and collapse with the weight of the floors above them.
Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough the melt steel and would have burnt off in a few minutes most of it outside the building. If you know some way of melting steel with an ordinary fire let me know and iron foundaries can get rid of their blast furnaces.
The steel may not have needed to melt but it certainly did melt, many tons of it. There is video footage of white hot molten steel pouring out of one of the buildings and they were diging out huge lumps of red hot steel from the rubble weeks later.
And there is another unfounded allegation, the word "clique", used by a very small minority (the CT Clique?). just because some orgers think the same they are accused of being in the clique!
When they are on the back foot they always pull that word out of their lexicon. There is no clique. Unless it is in your mind....
Once again the evidence proves you wrong, yours and Golachs attempts at intimidation are there for all to see.
Personally, I'd prefer to know why, if the "mass media" were pre-briefed in some way, or had a badly timed conspiracy-ridden release to work from, they didn't fasten on the much bigger story of WHY they were being briefed on something that hadn't happened?
I haven't seen anyone saying that that happened.
Looks to me like the BBC were just innocently reporting what they had been told, the reports come in from the news services and the reporter reads them.
Aviation fuel doesn't burn hot enough the melt steel and would have burnt off in a few minutes most of it outside the building. If you know some way of melting steel with an ordinary fire let me know and iron foundaries can get rid of their blast furnaces.
The steel may not have needed to melt but it certainly did melt, many tons of it. There is video footage of white hot molten steel pouring out of one of the buildings and they were diging out huge lumps of red hot steel from the rubble weeks later.
So what are you saying fred? The steel did melt or it didn't?
So what are you saying fred? The steel did melt or it didn't?
There is no doubt a lot of steel melted.
I'm asking what caused it to melt, the heat from the aviation fuel and fires in the building were nowhere near hot enough.
changilass
28-Feb-07, 21:43
So what would be hot enough???
Wow, a few hours ago I discovered that this thread had been resurrected. I remember when Scorrie threatened to make us read it if we lost the quiz one Sunday months back. Well I broke all land speed records (for me anyway) from Inverness to get to Wick to log on and find out what the fuss was all about.
Hi everyone. I am here in Caithness on your time zone. And it is still not yet dinner time back in Canada.
So what would be hot enough???
A carbon fire with forced oxygen would be hot enough, something blowing air into the fire would make it hot enough like the bellows on a blacksmith's forge make the coal burn hot enough to melt the iron.
Or a non carbon fire, something like thermite which is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium and burns at a very high temperature, a form of it is used by army demolition teams to cut through steel girders.
Are we going over this AGAIN??????
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=7987&page=12&highlight=world+trade+centre
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=10896&highlight=conspiracy
If so why?
Are we going over this AGAIN??????
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=7987&page=12&highlight=world+trade+centre
If so why?
Maybe the pros discovered some more conspired information.
If so why?
You are going through it again because you keep clicking on a thread you obviously have no interest in.
Like the repeats on the TV Golach - every year they roll them out for a new audience.
Canuck,
This is a completely new rehash of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories....
A carbon fire with forced oxygen would be hot enough, something blowing air into the fire would make it hot enough like the bellows on a blacksmith's forge make the coal burn hot enough to melt the iron.
So you are a steelworks chemist now eh?
Hmm, iron age man was able to melt iron with just a few bits of woods, gosh I never knew that aviation fuel with a 1300ft high wind behinfd it wasn't sufficient to melt steel!:roll:
j4bberw0ck
01-Mar-07, 00:04
Hi everyone. I am here in Caithness on your time zone. And it is still not yet dinner time back in Canada.
Well, canuck, if no one else has the manners to return your greeting, I shall. Even if I'm not in Caithness - welcome back to Eastpondia :lol: . Hope the jetlag's working out OK. Cheers! J
Mmmmm, maybe here:
There is no doubt whatsoever that something seriously dodgy was going on that day what with big insurance claims being paid out.
Taken totally out of context, something dodgy doesn't translate as the american government slaughtering 3000 of it's own citizens.
They do have a track record for abusing their own citizens, mkultra springs to mind.
So you are a steelworks chemist now eh?
Hmm, iron age man was able to melt iron with just a few bits of woods, gosh I never knew that aviation fuel with a 1300ft high wind behinfd it wasn't sufficient to melt steel!:roll:
As I have already pointed out most of the fuel from the planes burnt off in seconds in a huge fireball, mostly outside the buildings.
Iron age man didn't melt iron, they produced iron by a chemical process, they heated iron oxide with charcoal in an enclosed place and the carbon monoxide produced reduced the iron oxide to pure iron which they then wraught.
A carbon fire with forced oxygen would be hot enough, something blowing air into the fire would make it hot enough like the bellows on a blacksmith's forge make the coal burn hot enough to melt the iron.
Or a non carbon fire, something like thermite which is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium and burns at a very high temperature, a form of it is used by army demolition teams to cut through steel girders.
Debunking The 9/11 Myths......
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4)
As I have already pointed out most of the fuel from the planes burnt off in seconds in a huge fireball, mostly outside the buildings.
Iron age man didn't melt iron, they produced iron by a chemical process, they heated iron oxide with charcoal in an enclosed place and the carbon monoxide produced reduced the iron oxide to pure iron which they then wraught.
How do you know that 'most' of the fuel burnt in seconds mostly outside the building?
So at no point the iron was in a low viscous form then? [lol]
Iron age man didn't melt iron, they produced iron by a chemical process.
Yeah, just like your thermite...:roll:
cliffhbuber
01-Mar-07, 05:23
As one who watched the whole sordid and sad affair of the towers on 9/11, and did extensive research after, I must say that most fuel burned inside the buildings burning off the insulation of the steel cross beams, which softened and gave way causing the collapse from the top....
The perimeter vertical structure of the towers was the main support; not the same in the middle of the towers.
It would seem that 'new' videos are the works of image superimposers, an easy technical task these days, and one commonly used by the news 'rags'.
The BBC World we get in Canada has some good programming, particualarly with hard-hitting interviews of political figures.
BBC, in general, has a reputation lately of fudging the news the last few years with a particular slant.
Debunking The 9/11 Myths......
But where did all the molten steel come from? You just post a passage from some web site pretending it answers the question when it doesn't. Saying "the steel didn't need to melt" doesn't alter the fact that the steel did melt and it doesn't explain how it happened.
Does it (steel) normally melt under controlled demolition conditions?
As one who watched the whole sordid and sad affair of the towers on 9/11, and did extensive research after, I must say that most fuel burned inside the buildings burning off the insulation of the steel cross beams, which softened and gave way causing the collapse from the top....
The perimeter vertical structure of the towers was the main support; not the same in the middle of the towers.
It would seem that 'new' videos are the works of image superimposers, an easy technical task these days, and one commonly used by the news 'rags'.
The BBC World we get in Canada has some good programming, particualarly with hard-hitting interviews of political figures.
BBC, in general, has a reputation lately of fudging the news the last few years with a particular slant.
Which still doesn't answer the question "where did the heat come from to melt steel?". There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11) shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?
Which still doesn't answer the question "where did the heat come from to melt steel?". There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11) shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?
........................Heat
j4bberw0ck
01-Mar-07, 10:16
Taken totally out of context, something dodgy doesn't translate as the american government slaughtering 3000 of it's own citizens.
They do have a track record for abusing their own citizens, mkultra springs to mind.
D'ohhhhh......it gets worse........ you allege abuse of citizens and cite MK ULTRA as evidence. MK ULTRA involved feeding a few people LSD. 9/11 includes killing 3000+ in a deliberate act of murder involving hi-jacked aircraft.
And you see a link? And it's evidence that the US authorities could have planned this? Executed it? Against their own people?
If that's true then the fact that the British have Porton Down and a servicemen died in a nerve gas test in the Fifties, is prima facie evidence of a plot within the British Government to do something similar to 9/11........ OMG.... they did it of course! It was 7/7! A government plot! And I didn't realise......
Darkman, you are a political genius! Thank you, oh thank you for showing me the light, darkman!
Hang on..... Darkman... the light? D'ohhhhh my brain hurts..... :lol::lol:
j4bberw0ck
01-Mar-07, 10:32
There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11) shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?
Fred, what says that it's steel?
D'ohhhhh......it gets worse........ you allege abuse of citizens and cite MK ULTRA as evidence. MK ULTRA involved feeding a few people LSD. 9/11 includes killing 3000+ in a deliberate act of murder involving hi-jacked aircraft.
And you see a link? And it's evidence that the US authorities could have planned this? Executed it? Against their own people?
If that's true then the fact that the British have Porton Down and a servicemen died in a nerve gas test in the Fifties, is prima facie evidence of a plot within the British Government to do something similar to 9/11........ OMG.... they did it of course! It was 7/7! A government plot! And I didn't realise......
Darkman, you are a political genius! Thank you, oh thank you for showing me the light, darkman!
Hang on..... Darkman... the light? D'ohhhhh my brain hurts..... :lol::lol:
Never!!!, at any time did I say the american government planned and carried out the atrocities on 9/11, let's get that one straight and maybe you will engage your brain before you start spouting your sarcasm at someone else, not a very nice quality in a person.
The example I used is just that, an example of how governments can experiment with no regard for their citizens so don't tell me that someone using 9/11 as the perfect excuse to make lots of money is beyond the realms of possibility, It would be very naive.
Fred, what says that it's steel?
What else did you think it might be?
Never!!!, at any time did I say the american government planned and carried out the atrocities on 9/11, let's get that one straight and maybe you will engage your brain before you start spouting your sarcasm at someone else, not a very nice quality in a person.
That's how the clique works darkman, that's all they do, trying to have a sensible debate with them is like swimming in treacle.
That's how the clique works darkman, that's all they do, trying to have a sensible debate with them is like swimming in treacle.
So it seems fred, ignorance is a very endearing quality to some governments.[lol]
There is masses of evidence that large amounts of steel did melt, in this shot you can see white hot molten steel pouring out of the South Tower, what caused it to melt?
HOW do you know that is steel? There is ±124,500lbs of 737 in that building. That could be the aircraft metal components/fuselage melting. It could be aluminium in the building melting (ventilation ducts, fixtures and fittings).
Have you tested the molten 'metal' which poured out? HOW do you know for certain that is steel? Are you able to deduce purely from a shaky video shot from 100's of yards away from your countless years experience as a metal worker that there is molten steel in that flow?
No, didn't think so.......
BTW J4bberw0ck, your Clique membership certificate is in the post....
j4bberw0ck
01-Mar-07, 13:03
Thanks, MadPict - the aluminium alloy from the plane is exactly what I'm getting at. The video was taken not long after the plane impacted, by the look of it, since there's only one area of damage to the building. As to "white hot" - maybe, maybe not; but isn't oxidation (a heat releasing reaction, if I remember right) as hot / molten metal hits a high speed stream of air outside the building a credible explanation?
As for my Clique certificate, I'll enjoy it; thank you. I mistrust politicians and the people behind them who influence and cajole as much as the next man, and more than most, but I'm forced time and time again to looking at this whole thing on a "balance of probabilities" basis - what evidence is there that insurance money or being able to declare war on <insert Arab or Muslim country of choice> led a clique of the US power structure to kill 3000 people?
Haven't these people ever heard of doing something simply? Like inventing WMD, which I concede with some sadness as evidence of the stupidity of government?
Hansen's Razor: don't attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Darkman, apologies if I caused offence but your point, in isolation, made no sense at all. Context, however, makes it look as though you did indeed mean exactly what you said. All governments have a track record of some sort when it comes to abusing their members of their populations, even those models of cosy "liberalism" and good will, the Swedes and the Canadians.
Since I'm not privy to your thought processes, context is all there is to make a judgement, which I did. And if you're NOT saying it was a deliberate act, what are you saying?
You appear to be accusing me of naivete when you're happy to conclude that:
- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that insurance money wasn't the motive for 9/11.
Hmmmmm....... following the logic, we could equally say:
- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that a secret clique of hygienists, wanting to use the heat from the fires to kill all the nasty bugs and bacteria in the WTC, wasn't the motive for 9/11.
Wow. Must Google that one! :lol:
You appear to be accusing me of naivete when you're happy to conclude that:
- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that insurance money wasn't the motive for 9/11.I believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat, I did not say that insurance money was the reason for 911.
Hmmmmm....... following the logic, we could equally say:
- over 50 years ago a nutter working for the CIA did some drug experiments to see about mind control, using unwitting members of the public
- therefore it's naive to suppose that a secret clique of hygienists, wanting to use the heat from the fires to kill all the nasty bugs and bacteria in the WTC, wasn't the motive for 9/11.
Fools logic and sarcasm seem to sit very well with you.:roll:
...we do not have enough information about the fire and/or explosions to make an educated assumption about what melted at what temperature and so on. There is no way for you to know the insulation was burned off except for an hour long Discovery channel documentary based on one sided hypotheses that said it did. All we really have is eyewitness accounts & a few samples of the molten steel as remember, they dragged away all the evidence before anyone could investigate it properly. Precisely why we do not even see an entire paragraph devoted to what happened to WTC7 in the Commission Report.
So structural engineers explanations that if the insulation is dislodged it severely impacts on the ability of the steel girders to resist fire is all hogwash?
The scenario of a fully laden jet airliner actually crashing into a skyscraper had never happened before. The last time a plane flew into a building in NY it was 1945 and that was a B25 bomber returning from the UK.
Since then it has always been a worse case scenario for designers and engineers.
Maybe WTC7 did not feature in the 9/11 Commision because no-one died in that collapse and it was not actually hit by the two aircraft?
The term "pull" seems to have caught on amongst the CT brigade - it was explained that the word "pull" was used to mean withdraw the Firefighters from WTC7 - not to pull the building down.
Pull them out?
And why would Silverstein, who as far as I am aware is not in the demolition business, use a term which is alleged to be used only in the demolition business? Perhaps this billionaire moonlights as a powder monkey for a demolition company?
All grist to the CT mill I expect.....[lol]
j4bberw0ck
01-Mar-07, 14:50
Tell you what, darkman; since
Fools logic and sarcasm seem to sit very well with you.:roll:
can you explain why you
... believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat
as opposed to the view that it fell down because of consequential damage?
Seems to me to be an almost perfect example of sophism, but I'm always happy to be shown how I've got it wrong.
Sarcasm, by the way, is a recognised tool of debate, especially useful in highlighting the ludicrous; but if you're upset by it, I'll bear that in mind. As for fool's logic, it's not me who said the building was pulled down for the insurance. I thought it fell down because the other two towers fell down and caused damage. But as I said, I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways.
(I have this picture in my mind of Fred Dibnah sitting on the pile of rubble that was the WTC, flask of coffee in hand, watching with satisfaction as the fire he built in a big hole in the wall of Tower 7 eats inexorably into that big 10"x10" timber he cunningly propped up the front of the building with.....). It's at least as likely as people running round setting fires and bombs while the whole area was crawling with emergency services.
I have just been reading an eyewitness account from the Fire Chief and he said that WTC7 was on fire for quite sometime before it collapsed around 5pm. They could not fight the fire because of the lack of water so they decided to let it burn to the ground so they 'pulled' their firemen away from WTC7 to deal with other situations that they could deal with.
If it was blown up then why was it on fire?:roll: Oh, I know, it must have been incendiary devices eh?[lol]
[j4bberw0ck can you explain why you believe that wtc7 was pulled for the insurance money and 911 used as a scapegoat as opposed to the view that it fell down because of consequential damage?
Seems to me to be an almost perfect example of sophism, but I'm always happy to be shown how I've got it wrong.
Sarcasm, by the way, is a recognised tool of debate, especially useful in highlighting the ludicrous; but if you're upset by it, I'll bear that in mind. As for fool's logic, it's not me who said the building was pulled down for the insurance. I thought it fell down because the other two towers fell down and caused damage. But as I said, I'm always happy to be shown the error of my ways.
(I have this picture in my mind of Fred Dibnah sitting on the pile of rubble that was the WTC, flask of coffee in hand, watching with satisfaction as the fire he built in a big hole in the wall of Tower 7 eats inexorably into that big 10"x10" timber he cunningly propped up the front of the building with.....). It's at least as likely as people running round setting fires and bombs while the whole area was crawling with emergency services.Sarcasm is hardly an apt tool for debate, if you disagree with something someone has said then debate with your own reasoning why my argument is implausible or ludicrous, 'they wouldn't do that' just doesn't cut it.
You second scenario had a very tenuous link with sophism to say the least but let's not get into your use of rhetoric.
Have you ever heard of a fire before 911 that has ever caused a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse.
There were obviously extreme circumstances involving wtc1 & 2 but wtc7 is a different case altogether, it was not hit by an aircraft and there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:
Silverstein said:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."Doesn't seem like an order to pull firefighters out, does it?
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.Didn't collapse.
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.Didn't collapse.
Well, considering it would've been the first steel framed building to ever collapse from fire alone I would've thought every structural engineer in the world would've wanted a thorough investigation?
Exactly.
there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:
Didn't collapse.
Didn't collapse.
As I said, the Chief of Fire on the ground said WTC7 was engulfed in flames and was on fire for quite some time before it collapsed. They let it burn to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
What buildings in Glasgow rise to the same heights as WTC or were constructed in EXACTLY the same way?
What was the height of this building in Glasgow?
Did they use 1000's of gallons of aviation fuel?
Did they fly a 737 into the core of this building?
Did they weaken the building in a way to simulate impact by a jet aircraft travelling at 300mph and weighing 125,000lbs?
Was the grade of steel used the same as in the WTC?
If the answer to just one of those is "no" then you cannot use the professor's research to try and add to your argument.
Ahh, another You Tube entry.....
A voice off screen, answering a phone, says "Hello, we're getting ready to pull building 6" - so that could not have been edited into the clip? If someone wants to help these conspiracy theories by editing existing footage whats to stop them?.........
Those desperate to expose the US government as mass murderers will twist the media to make the story fit their warped theories.
As I said, the Chief of Fire on the ground said WTC7 was engulfed in flames and was on fire for quite some time before it collapsed. They let it burn to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
There were lots of photographs taken over the period of time between the damage to wtc7 and it's collapse and none show evidence of fires severe enough to cause this worlds first.
it was not hit by an aircraft and there is no evidence of large fires burning in wtc7:
No, but it was hit by debris from the collapsing WTC which caused a huge hole to appear in the side of the building facing the WTC...
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Most of the footage shown on YouTube or elsewhere is of the north side of the building...
...probably because no-one could film or photograph the side which had been hit.
Unless the demolition teams were creeping in that way....
Just noticed my Join Date - Sep 2001 - perhaps I am part of the conspiracy? Muahahahahaaa
There were lots of photographs taken over the period of time between the damage to wtc7 and it's collapse and none show evidence of fires severe enough to cause this worlds first.
I am sure that I could find angle shots of the WTC1 and WTC2 during the time that they were on fire which would show to my eyes that both didn't have enough fire damage to cause a collapse. It is the difference between layman knowledge and expert knowledge, that is not a trolling sentence before anyone has a go btw.
Do you think that during the time that the fire chief saw the scene and made his assessments that he was delluded into thinking it was going to collapse even though it bore out his professional opinion in the end? :roll: Or do you think he was in some form of conspiracy as well?
btw the more complicated a conspiracy gets to cover the facts the simpler it is to see that it is false.
Those desperate to expose the US government as mass murderers will twist the media to make the story fit their warped theories.
They are guilty of mass murder especially in south America, hitler didn't kill all those people in ww2 but he was still responsible directly or not.
Really?.........
http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4634.gif
Really?.........
http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4634.gif
I know how you feel...
Kaishowing
01-Mar-07, 16:08
Did they fly a 737 into the core of this building?
Everyone keeps saying that they were 737's...they were in fact both 767's that hit the twin towers, with over double the weight of a 737, and over 3 times the fuel capacity of a 737.
With even 70% of the fuel burning off outside in the initial impacts from a 767, that still leaves roughly the equivalent of a 737 at it's fuel capacity of over 26,000 litres.
This of course has nothing to do with WTC7 as it wasn't struck by an aircraft.
No, but it was hit by debris from the collapsing WTC which caused a huge hole to appear in the side of the building facing the WTC...
A huge hole but wheres the severe fire that caused the building to collapse faster than wayne rooney?
Really?.........
http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4634.gif
Really.....el salvador
A huge hole but wheres the severe fire that caused the building to collapse faster than wayne rooney?
As per the Chief of Fire recollections
Thanks kaishowing - not sure why I typed 737...
The fire was inside? It was visible through the windows in the video clip from "prisonplanet" - OK it wasn't pouring out of every window but fire is not predictable - no two fires are the same.
Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
El Salvador? Really......
Kaishowing
01-Mar-07, 17:03
I think that the idea that the devastation from 9/11 was directly orchestrated by the US government ludicrous.(IMHO)
The idea that some US citizens used the disaster to make some cash out of the situation, totally believable...Distastefull, but believable. After all, if Bin-Laden made a profit by selling his stocks and shares in the companies likely to be most effected by 9/11, why not anyone else?
Where I do find a conspiracy though, is the way that the Bush administration instantly tried to distance themselves from any connection between those responsible, when they were so pally-pally beforehand.
Also the way the media was manipulated to keep the world public in such a state of anxiety that any new laws passed in the name of 'national security' would be passed with the minimum of opposition.
THAT to me is the true conspiracy, and what really gets me angry is that in hindsight, they weren't even very good or subtle in their attempts to manipulate public opinion, but yet many fell for it....myself included right up until I saw Colin Powells farcical breifing to the UN (which even HE looked embarrassed about...quite a trick for a politician.)
As for the Twin Towers and WTC7, in my opinion the towers fell very quickly, but with the central supports damaged the floors would give way and once a couple 'went' adding their debris upon the floors below, then it would be like dominoes. Thats just a guess by the way.
With everything else happening that day, I can well imagine the fire crews being pulled away from WTC7 (probably a lost cause, -a judgement call for the ranking fire officer on-site) to concentrate on the surrounding area.
in such a built-up area, the fact that the fires didn't spread further than they did, is a testament to the NYFD.
I also have no doubt that there were 'profiteers' who took advantage of the events of 9/11 - be they the individual claiming to have lost a loved one to claim the insurance pay out or the sad stories of Firefighters leaving their wives for the widows of their dead comrades. These are facts which have been exposed in the time since 9/11. No doubt they have to live with that shame.
And I agree that the Bush administration no doubt took the opportunity to bolster their laws - just as our government is trying to tighten the security of the UK by some knee jerk legislation since 7/7.
But I don't believe for one minute that a secret circle of businessmen/politicians conspired to destroy the financial centre of NY and along with it 1000's of people.
Yes, the speed at which the twin towers fell was shocking. But it was a shocking event brought about by a shocking and evil act.
Perhaps the words of a NYFD Chief might explain it -
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
I think that we should remember that people died on that day - some people died trying to help others. Not just Firefighters but ordinary people.
The Firefighters who died that day were heroes. I know that the US uses that word a lot but these were brave souls.
http://nyfd.com/9_11_wtc.html
No aviation fuel but it did contain emergency generator fuel - I have posted that info here already.
It did suffer damage - I have also posted that info too.
If the building had not been damaged it could well have remained standing - I have posted that info too.
I post the info but you still fail to acknowledge that it did get damaged to a degree it could have structurally comprised it.
The fires did burn inside it.
The two events together more than likely caused it's collapse.
Do you agree with this?
Right back at you roy - how do you know everything you believe in or read is not falsified?
...Ay........
HOW do you know that is steel? There is ±124,500lbs of 737 in that building. That could be the aircraft metal components/fuselage melting. It could be aluminium in the building melting (ventilation ducts, fixtures and fittings).
White hot aluminium? That's a neat trick if you can do it.
Aluminium melts before it gets to red hot let alone white.
j4bberw0ck
01-Mar-07, 20:05
White hot aluminium? That's a neat trick if you can do it.
Aluminium melts before it gets to red hot let alone white.
Molten iron isn't white hot either, but if you think back to Bessemer Converters and the blow of oxygen through the iron, the ejecta from the throat of the thing certainly were. Is it entirely inconceivable that oxidation of molten aluminium in the fierce wind outside the building might not have sparked white-hot? Aluminium is a very reactive metal, far more so than steel.
Clearly something is coming out of the building in that video but I suggest it's infinitely more likely to be the plane's structural aluminium rather than the building's structural steel.
fred,
You called it white hot, not me - I referred to it as molten metal. It could, therefore, be any metal. But I see you fail to answer my question. How can you tell it is "white hot molten steel"?
fred,
You called it white hot, not me - I referred to it as molten metal. It could, therefore, be any metal. But I see you fail to answer my question. How can you tell it is "white hot molten steel"?
Because I've seen enough of both to know the difference.
In any case, if it had been aluminium then it would have been lumps of solidified molten aluminium they found in the rubble not lumps of solidified molten steel. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.wmv)
Another conspiracy site - no thanks. I tire of going round in circles with this - enjoy your conspiracy.
I have better things to think about.
Molten iron isn't white hot either, but if you think back to Bessemer Converters and the blow of oxygen through the iron, the ejecta from the throat of the thing certainly were. Is it entirely inconceivable that oxidation of molten aluminium in the fierce wind outside the building might not have sparked white-hot? Aluminium is a very reactive metal, far more so than steel.
I've melted some iron and I can assure you it goes white hot before it melts.
Those fierce winds are just a figment of Reghead's imagination, in the real world 9/11/2001 was a dead calm day and wind speeds at the top of the towers were between 10 and 20 mph.
The idea that some US citizens used the disaster to make some cash out of the situation, totally believable...Distastefull, but believable. After all, if Bin-Laden made a profit by selling his stocks and shares in the companies likely to be most effected by 9/11, why not anyone else?
Exactly my point.
Another conspiracy site - no thanks. I tire of going round in circles with this - enjoy your conspiracy.
I have better things to think about.Obviously not.
White hot aluminium? That's a neat trick if you can do it.
Aluminium melts before it gets to red hot let alone white.
Aluminium in its pure form will melt as you say but aluminium alloys which get called the generic term aluminium come in all sorts of specifications and properties.
Aluminium in its pure form will melt as you say but aluminium alloys which get called the generic term aluminium come in all sorts of specifications and properties.
Yes, there are 31 common aluminium alloys in use with melting points between 615c and 740c.
How did Channel 5 know the second tower was going to collapse?
You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.
The only forces present on the day, according to the official story were heat in the form of carbon fires and gravity. Yet:
1. All three towers fell symetrically therefore all the support columns must have failed at exactly the same time, how is this possible?
2. Huge steel girders were ejected 600ft horizontally from the towers, how is this possible?
3. Most of the concrete in the towers was pulverised into fine dust, how is this possible?
4. The towers fell at almost freefall speed, how is this possible?
5. Pools of molten steel were found under the buildings, how is this possible?
Just the other day a former American four star General, Wesley Clark said in an interview that just days after 9/11 someone at the Pentagon showed him detailed plans for America to take out seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Afghanistan makes eight,
I don't believe plans to take out eight countries arose as a result of 9/11 or were concieved so soon after 9/11, logic tells me that 9/11 arose as a result of those plans.
How did Channel 5 know the second tower was going to collapse?
Let us look at the facts, a plane flies into one tower, then another plane flies into the other. The first tower then crumbles to the ground.
Now don't get me wrong, but I don't think Mystic Meg is needed for the next piece of the story.
You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.
Fred, you say you have presented us with the absolute proof. What you have been presenting is one theory, that you and your anti American ilk have latched on to, I have the right to disbelieve you if I wish. And I wish. I suspect I am not the only one who thinks in a like mind.
Fred, you say you have presented us with the absolute proof. What you have been presenting is one theory, that you and your anti American ilk have latched on to, I have the right to disbelieve you if I wish. And I wish. I suspect I am not the only one who thinks in a like mind.
Once again you do nothing to explain how the official version could conceivably be true without breaking known laws of physics and explain it all away by saying I'm anti American. Several tons of steel mysteriously move horizontally when the only forces acting on them are vertical and you explain that by me being anti American.
Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program, former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney, Colonel Ronald D. Ray former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, they are all saying the same things I am, are they all anti American as well?
Let us look at the facts, a plane flies into one tower, then another plane flies into the other. The first tower then crumbles to the ground.
Now don't get me wrong, but I don't think Mystic Meg is needed for the next piece of the story.
And the pools of molten steel came from where?
Once again you do nothing to explain how the official version could conceivably be true without breaking known laws of physics and explain it all away by saying I'm anti American.
I have no reason to explain anything, I am saying that I and many others dont believe your version of events, and will continue to do so.
And the pools of molten steel came from where?
Which pools of steel?
Which pools of steel?
See what I mean roy?
A complete waste of time.
You're wasting your time roy, I've been presenting them with absolute proof for ages but they won't pull their heads out of the sand.
The only forces present on the day, according to the official story were heat in the form of carbon fires and gravity. Yet:
1. All three towers fell symetrically therefore all the support columns must have failed at exactly the same time, how is this possible?
2. Huge steel girders were ejected 600ft horizontally from the towers, how is this possible?
3. Most of the concrete in the towers was pulverised into fine dust, how is this possible?
4. The towers fell at almost freefall speed, how is this possible?
5. Pools of molten steel were found under the buildings, how is this possible?
Just the other day a former American four star General, Wesley Clark said in an interview that just days after 9/11 someone at the Pentagon showed him detailed plans for America to take out seven countries in five years. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Afghanistan makes eight,
I don't believe plans to take out eight countries arose as a result of 9/11 or were concieved so soon after 9/11, logic tells me that 9/11 arose as a result of those plans.fred, you're a darling. You ask a lot of questions and present them as incontestable answers. I love you for it. Could you leave your goats for one night and spend some time with me? ;)
It must have been real hot to make cuts like these.
http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg
I assume you are on about the central stanchion(sp) because those cuts look definitely like they've been done with oxy-acetylene equipment.
fred, you're a darling. You ask a lot of questions and present them as incontestable answers. I love you for it. Could you leave your goats for one night and spend some time with me? ;)
Oh I think I could snuck out without them noticing ;)
I assume you are on about the central stanchion(sp) because those cuts look definitely like they've been done with oxy-acetylene equipment.
They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.
Take a look at this (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/) or this (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news) there are plenty more where they came from.
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 20:29
They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.
Take a look at this (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/) or this (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news) there are plenty more where they came from.
It might just be me fred, however this is where I perceive the problem is - the credibility of your sources. I have lifted this quote from the second link/article which you have posted;
"For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.
http://www.gcn.com/images/clearpixel.gif
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said."
The temperature must have varied much higher than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, else the workers could not have pulled a steel beam from the wreckage that was still dripping "molten steel". I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of metallurgy could be written on the rear of a postage stamp, however I'm sure I read somewhere on this thread that the melting point of steel was in excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, therefore you'll have to excuse my use of that information if it's wrong.
You do raise interesting points fred, however it appears that you pursue every shred of information and misinformation in an attempt to validate your arguments and you damage your credibility by doing so.
You do raise interesting points fred, however it appears that you pursue every shred of information and misinformation in an attempt to validate your arguments and you damage your credibility by doing so.
There is no conflict Blazing Sporrans the surface ground temperature would be expected to be considerably lower than the temperature of the molten metal burried under it. The surface temperature of a volcano is considerably lower than the temperature of the molten rock just below the surface.
They could well have been, that still doesn't alter the fact there is masses of evidence of molten steel at the sites.
Take a look at this (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/) or this (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news) there are plenty more where they came from.
What pools of steel in them links?
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 21:18
There is no conflict Blazing Sporrans the surface ground temperature would be expected to be considerably lower than the temperature of the molten metal burried under it. The surface temperature of a volcano is considerably lower than the temperature of the molten rock just below the surface.
But he doesn't say that fred and nor does the article - instead that is the way you have chosen to interpret it, hence my earlier comment. I would much rather have read somewhere in the article that in the core of the rubble, the measured temperatures reached in excess of 2000 degrees, however that fact is lacking from your quoted source. Also the variation of ground temperature between 1500 degrees and 900 degrees must have affected the core temperature in a similar way, assuming that the author is actually referring to the surface temperature at ground zero - which might be hard to believe given the high temperatures quoted. You have referred to the surface temperature in your response to me, however your quoted source doesn't use the word surface. At such temperatures those involved in the clear-up wouldn't have been able to get near the site. See fred, everything that's unqualified is open to individual interpretation.
Please don't argue that I'm splitting hairs, because I prefer to deal in absolutes, i.e. when acknowledged experts reach a consensus of opinion on a subject or when I can speak to evidence through my own personal experience. Instead all I seem to see on this thread is something that at best can be summed up as "east is east and west is west"...
But he doesn't say that fred and nor does the article - instead that is the way you have chosen to interpret it, hence my earlier comment.
It is the only logical way to interpret it and undoubtedly what was meant. If the weather man says there will be a ground frost tonight he's talking about the surface not six feet down even if he doesn't specifically say that.
Even below the ground the temperature would be expected to be considerably lower even a short distance from the molten metal just as someone can hold their hand just inches away from an open fire but not get burnt.
Please don't argue that I'm splitting hairs,
You are splitting hairs, no doubt about it.
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 22:35
It is the only logical way to interpret it and undoubtedly what was meant.
Here we go again - fred is always right and everybody else with a contrary opinion is wrong. How do you know what was undoubtedly meant? Do you have direct contact with the author? (I suspect not).
That's what I love about your debating skills fred, your 100% belief in yourself. Don't get me wrong - that's a good trait to have - however it's often helped by being appropriately armed with facts rather than your own, self-endowed, expert opinion. :roll:
Even below the ground the temperature would be expected to be considerably lower even a short distance from the molten metal just as someone can hold their hand just inches away from an open fire but not get burnt.
An open fire burns out quickly though and needs continual refuelling. The fire/heat source at ground zero had to be progressively burning out, albeit very slowly, and while rubble and debris was being continually removed, the core temperature must have been reducing. Although I'm probably thinking too simply and 'inside the box' here as I don't share your level of technical expertise.....
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 22:38
If the weather man says there will be a ground frost tonight he's talking about the surface not six feet down even if he doesn't specifically say that.
Of course he's talking about the surface, that's why he says ground frost, not underground frost [lol]
Here we go again - fred is always right and everybody else with a contrary opinion is wrong. How do you know what was undoubtedly meant? Do you have direct contact with the author? (I suspect not).
It's just plain old common sense.
An open fire burns out quickly though and needs continual refuelling. The fire/heat source at ground zero had to be progressively burning out, albeit very slowly, and while rubble and debris was being continually removed, the core temperature must have been reducing. Although I'm probably thinking too simply and 'inside the box' here as I don't share your level of technical expertise.....
You don't need technical expertise you just need a bit of common sense. Bury a lump of red hot metal in the ground and all the ground doesn't become the same temperature as the metal just as the metal doesn't suddenly become the temperature of the ground. The temperature just an inch away would be considerably less, an inch of lagging on a steam pipe makes a huge difference to the temperature.
Blazing Sporrans
10-Mar-07, 23:28
It's just plain old common sense.
You do yourself a disservice here fred, it's not common at all mate - it's almost unique to you [lol]
You don't need technical expertise you just need a bit of common sense. Bury a lump of red hot metal in the ground and all the ground doesn't become the same temperature as the metal just as the metal doesn't suddenly become the temperature of the ground. The temperature just an inch away would be considerably less, an inch of lagging on a steam pipe makes a huge difference to the temperature.
Interesting example, except that the piece of red hot metal has no fuel source to maintain the heat and soons cools down, despite the insulation properties of the surrounding ground. Try it fred and let me know exactly how long it stays red hot for. I remember my 'O' grade physics teaching me heat loss using the formula "delta h = c m delta t" but I can't even begin to fathom the original temperature required, or the mass of the heated object that would sustain heat loss, yet allow such a high temperature (surface or core) to persist for such a long time in the aftermath of 9/11. I thought you'd already decided that the combustion of kerosene was insufficient to reach the temperatures required to melt steel, so what is the heat source that allows the steel at ground zero to remain molten for so long afterwards? Planting explosives is one thing, but providing a huge fuel source is another entirely. But what do I know? After all, I split too many hairs to be able to comprehend the magnitude of fred's enlightened reason....
Interesting example, except that the piece of red hot metal has no fuel source to maintain the heat and soons cools down, despite the insulation properties of the surrounding ground.
No, the concrete dust and the air trapped in it would have excelent insulating properties as does the ground. In the days before refrigerators they burried ice in winter and it stayed frozen all summer.
Look, they were pulling out lumps of red hot metal with molten steel dripping from it for weeks, there is masses of eye witness testimony, photographic and video evidence to prove it.
See this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035128522922802395)
video. There was molten steel flowing from the towers on 9/11.
See this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287)
video. There were rivers of molten steel in the buildings.
See this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2501925614149874222) video made 6 weeks later.
See this photo, it was taken 8 weeks later, they were still pulling out lumps of red hot metal dripping with molten steel then.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/hotSlag.jpg
The evidence is just overwhelming that it happened but nobody has explained how, nobody con tell me where the heat came from to make it happen.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/hotSlag.jpg
The evidence is just overwhelming that it happened but nobody has explained how, nobody con tell me where the heat came from to make it happen.
I think you have been had Fred. That picture is looks doctored to me.
I think you have been had Fred. That picture is looks doctored to me.
I think you are just in a state of denial.
It doesn't matter how much evidence I post and there's plenty more of it, you'll never admit you were wrong.
Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time.
The evidence that there was plenty of molten steel is overwhelming. Loads of firefighters and other rescue peronnel have confirmed that and this all is well documented.
Can please anybody can come forward with an evidence based explanation that there was no molten steel? Are all those firemen and pictures telling lies? People have pulled out lengths of steel beams out of the rubble of the buildings and they clearly said that the ends were still molten. They have provided pictures too. Those are the lads that were there and they did a hefty job! Now those of you that are in constant denial, what qualifies you to discard those statements?
I think you are just in a state of denial.
It doesn't matter how much evidence I post and there's plenty more of it, you'll never admit you were wrong.
Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time.
I am not in denial, I think you are the one who is in denial. Just have a look at the picture again, it is totally false.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/hotSlag.jpg
First off, I have worked in a foundry and I am familiar with the properties of molten metal.
The colour of the dropping molten blobs of steel is wrong. They should be yellow-yellow/white. Anything more orange will be solid, the blobs are orange/red. Molten steel gives off lots of light and would be almost impossible to look at with the naked eye, yet men are working on it with just a JCB!
Even the white smoke/steam is brighter than the molten metal!!
The photo was taken at night, so the brightest thing there should be the molten metal. So where is the 'shine' reflecting from the surrounding pieces of debris? There is none.
Plus there is something very odd with the bottom part of the 'molten' bit, it has a straight horizontal line underneath where one shade of orange changes to a brighter shade of orange, as if it has been pasted on.
The photograph, clearly has the molten steel in a similiar contrast as the background and foreground. Any photo would be impossible to create naturally as the molten steel would over-expose the shot and send the background and foreground into blackness. It clearly doesn't. The correct effect is created where the lights over-expose the film on the right of the photo. You clearly see the light's 'aurora' bleeding over the darkened debris, the same should be seen with the bright steel.
It is a fake photo, a good attempt but clearly a fake.
So all those that worked on the ground and had to deal with red hot steel are just telling lies?
And it's taken all this time for somebody to manufacture that one. So now the BBC are part of the "Conspiracy", well fred, I'm glad we agree on something, the BBC News cannot be trusted to report the facts.
And all this time you have refused to accept that they are politically motivated.
If that is genuine, un-doctored BBC output then all it shows is that they will conspire to do anything in order to discredit the USA.
Come on folks, lets all join in. The person with the silliest Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 gets a prize - a copy of Grimms' Fairytales!
Next fred will be telling us that News at Ten sent a camera crew out every night to show Big Ben striking live.
I'm waiting for somebody to tell us that the WTC is still standing but pictures showing it to have gone have been doctored.
Fred, even if all the conspiracy theories were true, at the end of the day there are only the few politically minded or those who want to write about Conspiracies who have the slightest interest. I love a good comedy, Monty Python, eat your heart out, at last you've got serious competition.
Accept it fred, the horse is not only dead but the corpse has rotted away and keeping on flogging it ain't going to change that fact.
Anybody believe that Capricorn One is the absolute truth about the moon landing? And Nessie does exist because there's a photo which "proves" it.
Hi Jaws, if you would only know how many people in New York know fairly well of molten steel etc., you would possibly change your mind. Mainstream news have decided to promote the truths of Blair and Bush. Well you see the result of this truth in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe we see it in New York as well? Fact is there was molten steel at the ground of the WTC. Why?
No Rambler, the question is, "Why Not?" When was the last time buildings of such size were damaged and collapsed in the same way for comparison.
Oh yes, and you don't pick molten metal up with a Grab. I notice it is always the same highly dodgy pictures which appear time and again. That’s apart from the dodgy supposed BBC clip showing the Tower’s falling down before they did collapse.
I shall watch the BBC closely in case they “accidentally” give the result of the next Grand National before the race starts so I can fleece the Bookies. Anybody want to bet it will never happen?
The whole of the American Government, both Democrat and Republican, the whole of the American Military, the whole of the American Law Enforcement, the whole of the American Civil Aviation Authority and the whole of the World's media have conspired together to lie to the whole of the World's Population and everybody was fooled.
The only people who know the real truth are those whose intellect is so far above that of the rest of humanity that only they know the truth.
I'm surprised nobody has tried to blame the Little Green Men who are the ones really controlling the World.
Ooh, look, another UFO! I told you Close Encounters was true! ET phone home! Or is One (they all) Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest more appropriate? :roll:
The only thing that I have become convinced of is that those who are determined to “discover” a Conspiracy have got so desperate that they will grasp at any passing fantasy that comes within range. Talk about grasping at straws, it seems some people are doing it by the armful.
Still, it's good for a laugh if nothing else. [lol]
I am not in denial, I think you are the one who is in denial. Just have a look at the picture again, it is totally false.
First off, I have worked in a foundry and I am familiar with the properties of molten metal.
The colour of the dropping molten blobs of steel is wrong. They should be yellow-yellow/white. Anything more orange will be solid, the blobs are orange/red. Molten steel gives off lots of light and would be almost impossible to look at with the naked eye, yet men are working on it with just a JCB!
That isn't a JCB.
Here's (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2496306137590411791&q=molten-steel) another video, a video of molten steel being poured in a steel foundary, is this one fake as well?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/2.jpg
Must have been quite a conspiracy to fake molten steel at the WTC, doctoring the newsreel footage, bribing all those firemen and clearance workers to say they'd seen it, doctoring that photo, planting a huge lump of solidified steel and concrete at the scene.
There was molten steel at the WTC and a lot of it, there is too much evidence from too many different sources to believe otherwise, you are just clutching at straws in a desperate attempt at not having to admit you were wrong.
That isn't a JCB.
Here's (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2496306137590411791&q=molten-steel) another video, a video of molten steel being poured in a steel foundary, is this one fake as well?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/2.jpg
Must have been quite a conspiracy to fake molten steel at the WTC, doctoring the newsreel footage, bribing all those firemen and clearance workers to say they'd seen it, doctoring that photo, planting a huge lump of solidified steel and concrete at the scene.
There was molten steel at the WTC and a lot of it, there is too much evidence from too many different sources to believe otherwise, you are just clutching at straws in a desperate attempt at not having to admit you were wrong.
You have just proved my point. The contrast is correct on this foundry photograph and the camera apperture is adjusted to the light and under exposed the surrounding area. That clearly hasn't happened in the WTC shot. And another point, to film molten metal you will need a filter or special film in the camera to prevent over exposure.
The contrast in the WTC shot is just wrong, it is a fake.
You have just proved my point. The contrast is correct on this foundry photograph and the camera apperture is adjusted to the light and under exposed the surrounding area. That clearly hasn't happened in the WTC shot. And another point, to film molten metal you will need a filter or special film in the camera to prevent over exposure.
The contrast in the WTC shot is just wrong, it is a fake.
Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time, you will argue for ever but as how much evidence is piled up against you you will never admit you were wrong.
Metalattakk
11-Mar-07, 12:55
So because Rheghead pulls your presented evidence to bits, and shows it for what it is - lies and "misinformation" - you accuse him of being in the wrong?
Do you fail to see the irony in that?
Away and pull yer heid in, man.
Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time, you will argue for ever but as how much evidence is piled up against you you will never admit you were wrong.
How wrong you are for putting up fake photos as evidence. You must think we've all sailed in on the last banana boat.:roll:
Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack (http://www.debunking911.com/questions.htm).........................
Iron Burns!!! (http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm).....................
Like I said to roy, a complete waste of time, you will argue for ever but as how much evidence is piled up against you you will never admit you were wrong.That's about the most accurate thing you have said, fred. No matter how much evidence you will never change your mind.
There are people who are still "convinced" the Earth is flat and everybody is tricked into believing it is round.
And I suppose they really did carry out post mortems on Little Green Men from Roswell, after all there is a film which "proves" it. People just refuse to accept the truth even when such “evidence” is put before them. People are so stupid that they refuse to accept the film wasn’t a fake.
Next you will be trying to convince us that Nessie exists because there are photographs which “prove” that also.
Then, of course, there is photographic “proof” that fairies exist, http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/sense_of_place/unexplained/cottingley_fairies.shtml
In spite of such incontrovertible proof there are people who refuse to accept the facts about Fairies also! :roll:
The only "proof" which is being piled up is that the same old rubbish conspiracies are being rehashed over and over again and presented as "new evidence".
Blazing Sporrans
11-Mar-07, 18:38
Iron Burns!!! (http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm)
Looks like fred's in for a bit of research to debunk this article....
As I said earlier, my knowledge of metallurgy is about equivalent with my knowledge of what the back of my head looks like, however at least you learn something when you follow the links posted.
Anyway fred, if you followed the evidence presented by links such as the one above with the same vigour and tenacity as you followed and consumed those that you post yourself, then it might make your arguments a bit more even-handed. Instead, your stance always seems that of "accept what I tell you blindly or be labelled ignorant, uninformed, misled, with your head stuck in the sand". A good debate is one in which both sides can learn from one another - not just thumbing your nose and yelling "yah boo and sucks" because someone else enjoys and offers a contrary opinion.
BBCs' head editor of the news, Mr. Porter has now responded to the furore by saying they lost all the tapes from the day of 9/11 and none of the ones that BBC News 24 would help any. Sounds familiar... One of the greatest atrocities america has suffered and they lose the tapes, what a bunch of lying toerags.
One of the greatest atrocities america has suffered and they lose the tapes, what a bunch of lying toerags.The sudden "Discovery" of the alleged BBC’s tapes, which have strangely remained completely un-noticed by all the Conspiracy Buffs for over six years, strikes me as rather strange.
What is even more peculiar, or perhaps I should say convenient, is that the attempt to suddenly include the BBC in the “Conspiracy” comes very shortly after they broadcast a programme demolishing most of the more popular Conspiracy Myths which some seem so keen to have us believe.
The BBC, having shown the main Myths to be so many fantasies must now be denounced, after six very long, long years, as having been part of the Original Conspiracy in a rushed attempt to discredit it and therefore it’s recent programme.
How strange that such a glaring error made on one of the most watched TV Channels, on a day when many people were glued to the News, should just have happened not to be noticed at the time, let alone be missed for over six years. Unless the countless thousands who were watching the BBC at the time were also “Part of the Conspiracy!”
At this rate, the only people who will not end up as part of the “9/11 Conspiracy” will be those involved in spreading such rubbish. The cast of “Conspirators” must, by now, run into tens of millions of people throughout the world.
I hate to admit it, but I actually noticed the BBC's mistake on the day but I got a personal phone-call from the White House asking me not to say anything!
Well, even that’s more believable than some of the tripe put about by those who would have us believe in all the Conspiracies.
“Sorry, what’s that GW? No, I didn’t have to tell them. The BBC footage is already on the Web so everybody knows it has to be true!”
Jaws, there was a programme on tonight that mentions the phenomenon of the 'mash-up'. A 'Mash-up' is a piece of footage where film clips can now easily be re-edited and displayed on youtube to say anything that the conspiracy theorists want.
How wrong you are for putting up fake photos as evidence. You must think we've all sailed in on the last banana boat.:roll:
Rubbish, the photo isn't fake, you're clutching at straws.
I suppose you'll be saying next that all the eye witnesses who corroberate what is shown in the photo are liers.
Admit it, there is no doubt that steel melted on 9/11, the only reason you deny it is because you know there is no way the official version of events can explain it.
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 pdf file]
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 pdf file]
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]
Rubbish, the photo isn't fake, you're clutching at straws.
I suppose you'll be saying next that all the eye witnesses who corroberate what is shown in the photo are liers.
Admit it, there is no doubt that steel melted on 9/11, the only reason you deny it is because you know there is no way the official version of events can explain it.
I am not getting in an arguement about it, it is a fake. My observations about brightness and contrast are completely valid yet the WTC photo is inconsistent with other photos of molten steel. You can even see lava splashes to left of the grab from the original photo of a volcano like Mauna Loa. The molten bit is completely solid orange/red with no black debris in amongst it and it has 90 degree angles to it. The creator of the photo hasn't even gone to the bother of blending the colours correctly from outside the 'lava square'.
The molten bit should be the brightest thing in the photo with glare and reflections on the grab, but it is out of contrast and very poorly done. I could do a better job!! In fact I have done!![disgust]
See this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035128522922802395)
This certainly looks like molten steel/other metal, I will accept that this is what you say. All that jet fuel and burning furnishings must have caused the structure or other fittings to melt in accordance with the theory that the steel framework did actually soften and buckle under the weight of the floors above.
I am not getting in an arguement about it, it is a fake. My observations about brightness and contrast are completely valid yet the WTC photo is inconsistent with other photos of molten steel. You can even see lava splashes to left of the grab from the original photo of a volcano like Mauna Loa. The molten bit is completely solid orange/red with no black debris in amongst it and it has 90 degree angles to it. The creator of the photo hasn't even gone to the bother of blending the colours correctly from outside the 'lava square'.
The molten bit should be the brightest thing in the photo with glare and reflections on the grab, but it is out of contrast and very poorly done. I could do a better job!! In fact I have done!![disgust]
The photo is genuine, there is no doubt of that and the eye witness reports are genuine too.
But all this is taking us away from the point of the thread, remind me again just how did the BBC describe the collapse of a building 20 minutes before it collapsed and with the building in plain view behind the reporter?
“Sorry, what’s that GW? No, I didn’t have to tell them. The BBC footage is already on the Web so everybody knows it has to be true!”
No problem.
If it isn't true then all the BBC needs to do is release the original recording from the day and prove it never happened.
Metalattakk
12-Mar-07, 02:15
...At this rate, the only people who will not end up as part of the “9/11 Conspiracy” will be those involved in spreading such rubbish. The cast of “Conspirators” must, by now, run into tens of millions of people throughout the world.
I hate to admit it, but I actually noticed the BBC's mistake on the day but I got a personal phone-call from the White House asking me not to say anything!...
Haud yer wheesht now, JAWS...we all got that 'phone call too...except fred, of course. [lol]
This certainly looks like molten steel/other metal, I will accept that this is what you say. All that jet fuel and burning furnishings must have caused the structure or other fittings to melt in accordance with the theory that the steel framework did actually soften and buckle under the weight of the floors above.
The claim that aviation fuel does not burn at a temperature sufficient to melt steel is perfectly true. The problem is that there is no need for such a temperature to be reached. Steel starts to soften and buckle at a temperature between 600 and 700 degrees which is well within the temperature that aviation fuel reaches.
Like so many of the "it couldn't happen" claims when you check them out you discover that indeed they are correct. The only problem is that they simply didn't need to happen because the need for them has been deliberately grossly exaggerated to feed the malicious politically motivated claims of those intent on mischief.
They make their claims in the hope that people will not bother to check their veracity.
They will make a claim that it can’t be raining here because they are not getting wet. It is only when you check and find that “here” is in the middle of a building that you realise their stated “fact” says absolutely nothing about the weather conditions at all and that they are simply hoping to mislead you.
The term for that is, “lying by omission” and they are expert at doing it.
The silly claims about the BBC, and the game has just been given away, is in the hope of dragging the BBC into a long drawn out “Did they?”, “Didn’t they?” dispute purely in order to draw attention to themselves in the hope of drawing others into their fantasies. I suspect the BBC have done the sensible thing and sidestepped the issue completely.
The claim that aviation fuel does not burn at a temperature sufficient to melt steel is perfectly true. The problem is that there is no need for such a temperature to be reached. Steel starts to soften and buckle at a temperature between 600 and 700 degrees which is well within the temperature that aviation fuel reaches.
At what temperature does steel start pouring out of windows though?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/fig9-77.jpg
Molten Steel......... (http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm)
Blazing Sporrans
12-Mar-07, 10:57
Forgive me MadPict for posting from the link you've provided, however I thought that seeing these photos along with the accompanying text in close proximity to fred's post was the best answer to his question...
"The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.
One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...
http://www.debunking911.com/Moltenal.jpg
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.
Jones writes:"This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum."
Blazing Sporrans
12-Mar-07, 11:12
If it isn't true then all the BBC needs to do is release the original recording from the day and prove it never happened.
Ever since the Washington Post exposed Watergate as a conspiracy involving the highest level of the US government, it must have been every reporter's dream to become involved in their own expose which would shake the very foundation of their or another's government. To assume that every reporter in every section of the world's media is in collusion with Bush/Blair for the purposes of annexing the Middle East is nonsensical in the extreme.
The biggest story here would not be the terrorist atrocity at the World Trade Centre - BY FAR the bigger story would be that the US government were involved in the mass murder of their own citizens on American soil. At this moment in time, when so many sections within the western media are critical of the US-led intervention in Iraq, it beggars belief that they would still be complicit in a cover-up of the truth that fred would have us believe is out there. Five and a half years on, there is still no credible evidence supported by any part of the world's major media that such subterfuge has occurred. That tells me all I need to know....
sweetheart
12-Mar-07, 11:34
Part of the reason i stay up here, is because of the 9/11 attacks. I have
worked jobs in 2 of the towers that collapsed, in software engineering, at
salomon brothers on the 40th floor of 7wtc in 1991, and at 1wtc at Sybase
on floor 79. in sept 2001, our london-based company for which i was the
engineering director, had developed a spreadsheet-integrated plugin
that allowed a pension fund manager to trade directly using the FIX
portion of the GSTPA protocols in global finance. These protocols were
holding a public tradeshow at windows on the world that morning, above
where the first plane hit, from where nobody survived. The attacks destroyed
the business, by killing our sales pipeline at a critical point in
the business's development.
I believe that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush helped to organize the attacks
through their connections to saudi secret services, as part of a global
coup, partly outlined in a plan they published in advance called "Project for
the New American Century". In it, they specify the need
for a pearl harbor-like event to sponsor a call for their crusade to take
over the middle east oil (as determined by cheney's unpublic energy
consultations). Then a few thousand lives is a small price to pay,
like churchhill letting the nazis bomb coventry, a few lives lost to achieve
staggering political objectives. Their domestic adgenda includes massive
imprisonment: (about that) http://dunwalke.com/
They represent the business interest of big war and big oil, and houston
slavery culture that does not respect a middle class is it does not see the
need for one. They have ruthlessly set about social engineering with mass
imprisonment, race-based adgenda:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=12253
Any person with any engineering background knows that fossil fuels fires
burning for less than an hour haven't a prayer at melting steel, and even
more suspicously, that the 47 core steel beams, 36 inches 16 inch box
beams 5 inches thick all had to fail simultaeously down the building, falling
at the speed of a free-falling object through the path of most resistance.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/davidekhalil/forestry9111.jpg
The conference they attacked that morning was in financial globalisation
and transparency, something that would expose their hienous criminality.
The fact that it was the largest robbery in history, is left out of too many
accounts of 9/11, and the benefactors were (suprise!) the bush cheney
clan. Trillions missing in the pentagon finance office were conveniently
forgotten by bombing it, the dot com pending lawsuits, the gold in the
basements, the records of all the drugs trafficing of the bush clan.
Those people are really evil, evil beyond the wildest dreams of most
people, and it is well within their modus operendii to execute thousands for
the political imperium they represent. Subsequent years have turned this
to 'obvous', but some people are still slow on the uptake.
The evidence of the demolitions is clear in the richter scale videos that anyone
who's researched can observe.
There are photos of cars all around the ground zero site, where the metal
has been melted, and the plastic untouched, where the front half of the
car is missing, and the petrol tank is unfired: This car was a kilometer away,
what avaition fuel does that?
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image9.jpg
Any person with a physics background can observe that no normal event causes this.
You can see the bomb craters in the roof from the military demolition.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg
The world trade demolitions' primary political objective was to overturn
the american civil war, and to disenfranchise and enslave, like they have
to millions of americans since they took power, as well as millions around
the earth. What was 3000 lives, but a small price to pay in amoral men
who's wars cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Because britain is on the side of the nazis in this war, the BBC won't expose
the causus belli reichstag fire if it burned them.
How did wtc7 manage to fall so quickly and evenly, 6.5 seconds or 7 floors per second?
Blazing Sporrans
12-Mar-07, 12:22
Visit this site (http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm) for an explanation re WTC7. A summary of evidential points presented there follows;
(for those not in the know, Silverstein is the owner of WTC7)
"As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?Have a look at this interview (http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v) with Building 7 in the background - because they knew well in advance the building was going to collapse. The reporter says “This is it” as if they are waiting for the collapse. Then the other reporter says “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened.” Why did they fear a controlled demolition? If it was a secret demolition for money why did the media know about it ahead of time?"
Ever since the Washington Post exposed Watergate as a conspiracy involving the highest level of the US government, it must have been every reporter's dream to become involved in their own expose which would shake the very foundation of their or another's government. To assume that every reporter in every section of the world's media is in collusion with Bush/Blair for the purposes of annexing the Middle East is nonsensical in the extreme.
I haven't seen anyone assume that.
The biggest story here would not be the terrorist atrocity at the World Trade Centre - BY FAR the bigger story would be that the US government were involved in the mass murder of their own citizens on American soil. At this moment in time, when so many sections within the western media are critical of the US-led intervention in Iraq, it beggars belief that they would still be complicit in a cover-up of the truth that fred would have us believe is out there. Five and a half years on, there is still no credible evidence supported by any part of the world's major media that such subterfuge has occurred. That tells me all I need to know....
Why do you find it hard to believe that the US government would be complicit in the terrorist attack on the WTC on 9/11 when they have form for it? They were complicit in the WTC bomb attacks in 1993, the person who made the bombs which killed six people and injured a thousand was working for and under the supervision of the FBI.
Molten Steel......... (http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm)
They seem to be going to great lengths to make it as complicated as possible when really it's quite simple.
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhOw9JkPtlE) is a video of molten aluminium.
Here (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2496306137590411791&q=molten-steel) is a video of molten steel.
This (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten-steel) is the video of the South Tower.
Which do you see?
Kaishowing
13-Mar-07, 00:38
http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg
Without taking sides here, I'm just wondering if the steels were cut like that to clear part of the debris away. From what I remember of the days following the collapse of the towers, there were great loops of the steel bent over at the base of what was called Ground Zero which must have been obstructing any clear-up.
Makes sense to cut away the obstruction to allow easier access to the site......but without knowing exactly where the picture was taken, I fail to see the relevance to WTC7, which is what the thread was originally about.:)
fred,
I see someone who believes the 9/11 conspiracy garbage. I don't, so save your breath.........
kaishowing,
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Blazing Sporrans
13-Mar-07, 00:53
I haven't seen anyone assume that.
Using your own unfailing logic fred, is it not fair to have some level of assumption that the mainstream media are in collusion with the US government by maintaining their silence, or failing to properly investigate the whole conspiracy theory to your satisfaction? How come they all remain in the dark while it is left to vociferous campaigners like yourself to spread the truth and help us poor mushrooms see the light?
Why do you find it hard to believe that the US government would be complicit in the terrorist attack on the WTC on 9/11 when they have form for it? They were complicit in the WTC bomb attacks in 1993, the person who made the bombs which killed six people and injured a thousand was working for and under the supervision of the FBI.
I've obviously confused you here fred - my point was that why would the media be complicit with US government in burying the biggest news story of all time instead of using your truth to bring down Bush, Cheney and Blair?
I believe that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush helped to organize the attacks
through their connections to saudi secret services, as part of a global
coup, partly outlined in a plan they published in advance called "Project for
the New American Century".
Have you seen the latest? Cheney's old firm of war profiteers who have been ripping the American taxpayer off for billions in no bid contracts are relocating to Dubai so they don't have to pay tax on it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6440365.stm
Isn't it starting to dawn on the American public yet that they've been had?
I guess that day will come around the same time as you realise that you have "been had".........
Blazing Sporrans
13-Mar-07, 01:21
They seem to be going to great lengths to make it as complicated as possible when really it's quite simple.
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhOw9JkPtlE) is a video of molten aluminium.
Here (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2496306137590411791&q=molten-steel) is a video of molten steel.
This (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten-steel) is the video of the South Tower.
Which do you see?
See post #192 for that answer....
"Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black" [para]
Anyway as Kaishowing rightly said, is this debate not about WTC7 - so when do we get onto United 93 fred?
See post #192 for that answer....
"Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black" [para]
I haven't seen any evidence of the sustance solidifying near the end of it's journey, shots from a different angle show the substance still liquid at the end of it's journey whereas aluminium with a high thermal conductivity would have solidified near the start of its journey.
Don't you see what you're doing? I show you an entire video of something that looks just like molten steel and you focus on a few pixels in a still that look grey and may or may not be solid then say it must all be aluminium.
Anyway as Kaishowing rightly said, is this debate not about WTC7 - so when do we get onto United 93 fred?
Yes, this is about WT7, molten metal was found in the ruins there too even though it wasn't hit by an aluminium plane. WTC7 is one of only three steel framed buildings in history to suffer complete and symetrical collapse for any reason other than controlled demolition, the other two being WTC1 and WTC2, they've been through fires and they've been through earthquakes but never before has there been complete and symetrical collapse because that is impossible.
Use your eyes man and use your brain, look at these pictures, this is what you get when a steel framed building collapses not a hole in the ground filled with pulverised concrete dust with molten steel flowing through it.
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/taiwan_six.jpg
Were any of the above buildings exposed to the same effects of fire and structural damage as WTC7? What was the cause of their 'failure'? You don't (like many CT/truth seekers/9/11 deniers) actually link to any facts about these collapses. You just "quote mine" to try to reinforce your argument or pick the images to fit your POV....*
Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.
Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".
And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?
"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.
This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.
To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date....
For full enlightenment please read the source of the above quote which includes pictures and video....
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
*
Oh what a surprise - I guess you mined these images from a 9/11 Denial site - these buildings collapsed under the effects of an EARTHQUAKE. A 7.6 Richter scale quake at that. And where did this happen? Taiwan.
I dare say the building were not constructed to withstand earthquakes and may even have been built to sub-standard building regulations or even on the cheap.
So, buildings which were damaged in a major earthquake (Major, 7.0-7.9, Can cause serious damage over larger areas.) CANNOT be likened to the collapse of a building damaged by fire and structural weakening by as much as 25% of its lower floors. Your "evidence' would not stand scrutiny in a court of law. It is akin to hearsay....
Rubbish, the photo isn't fake, you're clutching at straws.
I suppose you'll be saying next that all the eye witnesses who corroberate what is shown in the photo are liers.
Admit it, there is no doubt that steel melted on 9/11, the only reason you deny it is because you know there is no way the official version of events can explain it.
Fred, I am not the only person to have trouble in fathoming out the content of that photo, this web page (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html) also points out that the photo is unconfirmed as they have doubts as to its authenticity. This cannot be a coincidence as it has just been brought to my attention, it appears that myself, madpict and metalatack are not the only ones to be duped by a fake photograph though the author of this website just stops short of suggesting that is so.
From now on, I will have to look at your posts from an immediate presumption of suspicion, sorry old chap...
Fred, I am not the only person to have trouble in fathoming out the content of that photo, this web page (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html) also points out that the photo is unconfirmed as they have doubts as to its authenticity. This cannot be a coincidence as it has just been brought to my attention, it appears that myself, madpict and metalatack are not the only ones to be duped by a fake photograph though the author of this website just stops short of suggesting that is so.
Once again they seem to be going to great lengths to make things complicated to try and cast doubt on a number of indipendent reports of molten steel. Frank Silecchia who was a clearance worker at Ground Zero says where and when he took the photo which ties in with other indipendent reports of red hot girders dripping with molten steel but because there is no absolute irrefutable proof that that is what happened the photo must be fake.
Unless you can give me some absolute irrefutable proof that the photo is fake I'll do the logical thing and assume it is genuine.
From now on, I will have to look at your posts from an immediate presumption of suspicion, sorry old chap...
I've been looking at yours with suspicion for a long time.
Unless you can give me some absolute irrefutable proof that the photo is fake I'll do the logical thing and assume it is genuine.
It has the wrong contrast, it is poorly pasted together, there is bad blending involved, there is no shine reflection on the underside of the grab, the molten steel is not bright enough and wrong colour, there is pasting lines, it is unauthenticated etc etc etc.
Nothing complicated in that, pretty simple really, you believe what you want, I didn't expect you to believe me anyway, it is a fake.
Oh what a surprise - I guess you mined these images from a 9/11 Denial site - these buildings collapsed under the effects of an EARTHQUAKE. A 7.6 Richter scale quake at that. And where did this happen? Taiwan.
That's right, a 7.6 on the Richter scale earthquake not superficial damage to one side and a few isolated fires like WTC7, the damage should have been far worse than WTC7.
So how did WTC7 end up looking like this while the buildings close in either side are almost unscathed?
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/wtc7.jpg
George Brims
13-Mar-07, 20:33
42,000 gallons of diesel fuel for emergency generators is one probable cause of the collapse according to many engineers who have studied what happened. To put things in perspective, the fire dept pulled their personnel from the area of WTC7 at 1130 am, and the fires burned unchecked for another 6 hours before the building toppled.
Do you know anything about how earthquakes affect structures? Buildings in earthquakes are affected by massive forces usually causing the buildings to move sideways as well as vertically. If the foundations are compromised before the structural integrity of the building (the 'framework') it will topple over.
Just as the buildings in Taiwan have done in your images - they fell over after probably a few seconds of siesmic activity. Modern buildings built in quake zones have shock absorbing foundations to absorb the worst of the shock waves. thats why many modern buildings might remain standing while older ones 'fall over'.
The WTC 7 building on the other hand suffered damage and was on fire - for some hours.
...not superficial damage to one side and a few isolated fires like WTC7...
"Superficial damage"?
"A few isolated fires"?
And you can PROVE this how? Try and do it without reference to ANY site which subscribes to the conspiracy theory.
By ignoring the testimony of firefighters, structural engineers and a whole shedload of better qualified people than yourself and the majority of the "truth seekers"?......
By cherry picking images and by selectively quoting people involved in 9/11, no matter how spurious their link to the event, to put across the bizarro world agenda of the 9/11 denial brigade?
Come on fred, tell us how you feel about Chemtrails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_theory)? Is it another area that you subscibe to? Are we being subjected to mind control drugs?......
Blazing Sporrans
13-Mar-07, 21:36
That's right, a 7.6 on the Richter scale earthquake not superficial damage to one side and a few isolated fires like WTC7...
Sorry again MadPict but I couldn't let this latest fredism go without response either. Since when did a 20 storey hole constitute "superficial damage"? So here you go fred, read this and I'll await your response with interest.... This man, this named and quoted source, was there on the day and provides incontrovertible evidence regarding the weakening of the structure of WTC7, the unchecked fire, the massive hole in the building and no water pressure to fight fires in the area. (You'll appreciate that I've edited some of the content but the link to the site is there to verify the authenticity of this abstract. I've also highlighted some crucial sentences and phrases.)
"WTC: This Is Their Story
From the August 2002 Firehouse Magazine (http://www.firehouse.com/magazine/)
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up. A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good. But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?
Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldn't see it, couldn't see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away. We ran into the people running around for water for the eyes because everybody's eyes were burned and I don't know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some other people. They were just running around, washing people's eyes out.
We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and everything was black again.
Firehouse: So number 7 comes down. Everything went black?
Boyle: It was like it was night again..."
There you go fred - dispute these facts and that testimony. No - wait - I've fallen for it hook, line and sinker, he's not a fireman - he's one of them. He's just been deep under cover for 17 years awaiting the right moment....
I'm also still waiting for your response regarding the unfathomable complicity of the world's media in the hushing-up of the biggest story of all time.
Blazing Sporrans
13-Mar-07, 21:39
Unless you can give me some absolute irrefutable proof that the photo is fake I'll do the logical thing and assume it is genuine.
And as the emergency services will tell you mate, "assumptions are the mother of all <ahem> mistakes..."
"Superficial damage"?
"A few isolated fires"?
And you can PROVE this how? Try and do it without reference to ANY site which subscribes to the conspiracy theory.
Just look at the description in Blazing Sporran's post above, the damage was to one face of the building. Most of the buildings strength was in the 25 central core columns. Damage to perimiter columns on one side of the building would make a symetrical collapse less likely.
I've seen videos of the building from most angles and seen no evidence of large areas of it being engufed with raging inferos. Not like in pictures of fires in other buildings...which didn't fall down.
By ignoring the testimony of firefighters, structural engineers and a whole shedload of better qualified people than yourself and the majority of the "truth seekers"?......
But earlier I posted a video of firefighters testifying to seeing rivers of molten steel under the buildings, I'm not ignoring it, you are.
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebcrevolution%2Eca%2Fbombs% 2Ehtm) is another video of a firefighter made on 9/11 you may wish to ignore.
By cherry picking images and by selectively quoting people involved in 9/11, no matter how spurious their link to the event, to put across the bizarro world agenda of the 9/11 denial brigade?
Come on fred, tell us how you feel about Chemtrails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_theory)? Is it another area that you subscibe to? Are we being subjected to mind control drugs?......
How is this relevant?
Is your argument so weak that you need to try and convince people that I subscribe to such theories to try and discredit me?
Sorry again MadPict but I couldn't let this latest fredism go without response either. Since when did a 20 storey hole constitute "superficial damage"? So here you go fred, read this and I'll await your response with interest.... This man, this named and quoted source, was there on the day and provides incontrovertible evidence regarding the weakening of the structure of WTC7, the unchecked fire, the massive hole in the building and no water pressure to fight fires in the area. (You'll appreciate that I've edited some of the content but the link to the site is there to verify the authenticity of this abstract. I've also highlighted some crucial sentences and phrases.)
I find the shortage of water excuse a little hard to believe seeing as the World Trade Center was built on the banks of the Hudson River.
Don't New York fire engines have pumps and hoses?
fred,
With every new post you are managing to discredit yourself. You need no help from me.....
Blazing Sporrans
13-Mar-07, 23:38
I find the shortage of water excuse a little hard to believe seeing as the World Trade Center was built on the banks of the Hudson River.
Don't New York fire engines have pumps and hoses?
Shouldn't you direct that to NYFD? I'm no fire-fighter, however I doubt that the tenders could pump in water in the quantites required, nor would they likely achieve the pressure that the mains hydrant system would provide. But hey - that's just my own observation - however I'll gladly believe the testimony of Captain Chris Boyle, who was there on the day, even if you won't.
The thing I love about you fred (:Razz ), is the way you cherry-pick the questions you wish to answer and blindly ignore the rest, so I'll ask again (for the third time);
why would the world's media be complicit with the US government in burying the biggest news story of all time instead of using your truth to bring down Bush, Cheney and Blair?
I'm also still waiting for your response regarding the unfathomable complicity of the world's media in the hushing-up of the biggest story of all time.
You are the one making that claim you respond to it.
I just pointed out that the BBC described the collapse of a building which was still standing, in plain view, at the time.
The thing I love about you fred (:Razz ), is the way you cherry-pick the questions you wish to answer and blindly ignore the rest, so I'll ask again (for the third time);
why would the world's media be complicit with the US government in burying the biggest news story of all time instead of using your truth to bring down Bush, Cheney and Blair?
But I didn't cherry pick anything and I did reply to your question.
Why do you and MadPict keep making personal attacks?
Metalattakk
13-Mar-07, 23:51
But I didn't cherry pick anything and I did reply to your question.
Why do you and MadPict keep making personal attacks?
I see no personal attacks here, fred. What I do see is someone blatantly trying to wriggle out of an extremely tight spot (of their own making), and failing rather miserably.
Now, are you going to answer Blazing Sporran's question or not? I'd guess not, as it's plain to see you don't have a clue how to answer it while still retaining the miniscule modicum of dignity that you are clinging so desperately to.
Now, you can consider that a personal attack if you want. Your beliefs (and the way you have presented them) are frankly laughable.
Frank Silecchia who was a clearance worker at Ground Zero says where and when he took the photo which ties in with other indipendent reports of red hot girders dripping with molten steel but because there is no absolute irrefutable proof that that is what happened the photo must be fake.
2 things.
I do not believe that there is any evidence anywhere that Frank Silecchia actually took the photograph.
Steel wouldn't melt like a dripping candle.
Blazing Sporrans
14-Mar-07, 00:18
But I didn't cherry pick anything and I did reply to your question. errrmmmm..... where?
Why do you and MadPict keep making personal attacks? errrmmmm..... where? Debating (very) loosely presented evidence in an environment such as this hardly constitutes a "personal attack" does it?
From your replies fred, or lack of them, I can only wonder as to what your next point will be, so can I slightly alter my earlier questions and ask whether you believe the world's media are complicit with the US government in the alleged 9/11 'cover-up' by their silence and failure to adequately investigate such a cover-up? You see fred, this is what the heart of debate is truly about, presenting an opinion or belief with adequate evidence to try and sway the opinion of the otherwise ambivalent observer. In these circumstances, you have to be very careful with each and every word, phrase or sentence that you present. As I said to you (much) earlier, you present some topics that give the reader much to cogitate over, however you often shoot yourself in the foot in your zealous presentation of information and misinformation from both credible and dubious sources as if it were all one. No offence intended - just an observation. ;)
You are the one making that claim you respond to it.
I just pointed out that the BBC described the collapse of a building which was still standing, in plain view, at the time.So you are absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the clip, which has mysteriously appeared years after the event, "supposedly" showing the BBC describing the collapse of the building which was still standing is verifiably accurate?
Could this be yet another example of the wishful thinking which alleged that all the phonecalls from Flight 93 could not possibly have been made because Mobile (Cell) Phones would not work at 40,000 feet when, in fact, only two short calls, made at an unknown height, were made using Mobiles.
All the other calls were made from the Air-phone on the plane and the Mobile (Cell) Phone story was complete invention.
What I would like to know is who writes the script because they could make a good living writing Adventure Books for Children. When is the book written by the person who "discovered" the "error" due to be published? A good title for it could be, “Drop the Dead Donkey!”
errrmmmm..... where?
Here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=200992&postcount=197
And here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=201346&postcount=219
So you are absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the clip, which has mysteriously appeared years after the event, "supposedly" showing the BBC describing the collapse of the building which was still standing is verifiably accurate?
I'm sure that if it wasn't accurate then that could be easily verified by the BBC playing the genuine footage from the day and proving it fake.
No, it is upto the accusers to prove what they say is true, not upto the BBC to join in and give credence to every internet fantasy.
Why has it taken so long for such "damning proof" to be "discovered"? I wonder how long it took to dream the idea up?
Could it be that the BBC debunked most of the stupid conspiracies made up about the Twin Towers. Every time one dies a death by some strange coincidence somebody "discovers" yet another, each one more pathetic than the last.
If the BBC respond sensibly they will hand the "plot" over to their best comedy writers, it could keep them going for years.
"It must be true because nobody has bothered to prove it isn't." Following that argument Father Christmas must exist because nobody has proved he doesn't.
Fred, you had better be a good boy or he might not bring you presents this year. :roll:
No, it is upto the accusers to prove what they say is true, not upto the BBC to join in and give credence to every internet fantasy.
So if someone is accused of a crime and they have a cast iron alibi they should keep quiet about it?
Metalattakk
14-Mar-07, 12:11
Ah but, here you are twisting the facts again, fred.
No-one has accused the BBC of any 'crime'.
Put it this way, fred: If some loony off the internet accused you of a preposterous crime, would you feel duty-bound to even respond, never mind defend yourself? :D
Ah but, here you are twisting the facts again, fred.
No-one has accused the BBC of any 'crime'.
Put it this way, fred: If some loony off the internet accused you of a preposterous crime, would you feel duty-bound to even respond, never mind defend yourself? :D
The BBC did respond and did not deny that the clip was genuine.
So if someone is accused of a crime and they have a cast iron alibi they should keep quiet about it?The best reaction when bunch of comedians accuse you of an pathetically manufactured offence is to say, "I've no idea. Prove it! And if you can't then go away and stop being stupid!"
Seems to me that the BBC have responded in the best possible way.
They have refused to waste one second on a pathetic attempt to start yet another moronic Conspiracy Theory.
Oh look, there goes another "Flying Pig". Sorry, mustn't mock the afflicted! [lol] Sorry, I'm trying to keep a straight face, honest, really I am. :roll:
:
Blazing Sporrans
14-Mar-07, 21:52
Here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=200992&postcount=197
And here http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=201346&postcount=219
Sorry fred - not trying to be obtuse here (cue fred's predictable response "you're being obtuse here") however as far as I can see, your post #219 is a failure to repond to the question (in rather a childish manner if you don't mind me saying so). Post #197 is your answer to a question in which you have grasped the wrong end of the stick completely. I've detailed your misunderstanding and even subsequently amended the question in post #223, in an attempt to make the terms of the question perfectly clear to you. Are you now willing to respond to that? I'm afraid I'll have to take any refusal as your tacit acknowledgement that you can't....
When you can't argue your point adequately, just obfuscate and/or ignore - I see a future in politics for a spin doctor with your talent ;)
So if someone is accused of a crime and they have a cast iron alibi they should keep quiet about it?
Only if it involves little grey men........http://planetsmilies.net/alien-smiley-126.gif
Blazing Sporrans
15-Mar-07, 21:17
Has fred been abducted by MadPict's alien? We haven't heard from him in over 24 hours here...... :eek:
Has fred been abducted by MadPict's alien? We haven't heard from him in over 24 hours here...... :eek:
Don't we get pushy when we are running with the clique, I have a life you know.
Respond to what? the total abandonment of logic, your attempts to bully me into answering your strawman argument or the cliques attempts to label me as a conspiracy theorist?
Three thousand died on 9/11, they and their families deserve the truth, they haven't had it yet. They deserve a full and impartial investigation into all aspects of the day and a full and indipendent inquiry with Whitehouse officials testifying under oath.
More than that number of workers and residents will die as a result of breathing toxic air after 9/11, air which their government said was safe when they knew full well that it wan't, among other things the towers contained 2,000 tons of white asbestos.
The BBC broadcast was just one of many anomalies which prove the official version of events wrong, the dead, the dying and their families deserve an explanation.
Take a look at the whole picture and it all makes sense, take your approach of starting with the conviction that the official version must be true then taking the anomalies one by one, finding any possibility whatsoever, no matter how unlikely, that the official story could be true, if all else fails claim someone faked the evidence, saying that that must be what happened then moving on to the next anomaly and doing the same makes no sense at all.
Who has gained from 9/11? Israel, the oil companies the arms industries the WTC leaseholder but most of all the proponents of a global American empire. The people who held all the key positions in the American government, the people who paid to put them there, they have been the only winners. The possibility of them being complicit should at least be considered not discounted as impossible while claiming the impossible official version happened.
Who has gained from 9/11? Israel, the oil companies the arms industries the WTC leaseholder but most of all the proponents of a global American empire. The people who held all the key positions in the American government, the people who paid to put them there, they have been the only winners. The possibility of them being complicit should at least be considered not discounted as impossible while claiming the impossible official version happened.
Oh No here we go again, been waiting for this to creep back in. Fred if anything you are becoming predictable [disgust]
The clique has a new member? Did he complete the initiation? And has he got his "Org Clique" T-shirt?.......
How do you know they haven't had the truth? Maybe they believe that a bunch of terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into targets in the US on 9/11. Maybe they want to put the whole thing behind them and move on with their lives. Maybe they can't while the likes of Alex Jones and Professor S Jones (Now sacked from BYU for his crazy views) continue with their 'truthseeking'....
But wait! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted being the brains behind 9/11 and many other atrocities!!
SOURCE - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6452573.stm?ls
How can that be - it was Bush along!!! Two brains? .......
I'm glad fred recognises that 3000 people died on 9/11 - or did they? Perhaps like the passegers and crew of Flight 93 they might be held in a secret location, having to live the rest of their lives out in isolation so they don't spill the beans about the pro Irsraeli Bush administrations evil money making act....
It took fred a few hours to compile that reply - I wonder if he had help. Maybe emailing his co-CT/truthseekers/9/11 denialists for advice? Or scouring the internet for some other slant to the whole event which no-one has thought of?
But no, he rolls out the tired old anti-Israeli/anti-Zionist* (delete as applicable) mish mash of an argument. You haven't rolled out the UFO on 9/11 yet - too crazy a theory?
http://www.orbwar.com/ufo-photos-wtc-attack-9-11.htm
Disclaimer: The above is not a personal attack on one individual (henceforth referred to as "an Orger") but rather a questioning of the collective attempts by many (henceforth known as "Conspiracy Theorists/Truthseekers/9-11 Denialists") to perpetuate the outlandish theories that the events of September 11th 2001 (henceforth referred to as "9-11") is totally incorrect (henceforth referred to as "bunkum").
9/11 simply occurred because of a terrorist act, Princess Diana simply died in a roadcrash brought on by alcohol, JFK simply died because of a lone nut with a gun.
People are just unhappy with the simplicity of reality so they have to make up stories.
But wait! Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted being the brains behind 9/11 and many other atrocities!!
SOURCE - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6452573.stm?ls
Maybe he did plan the hijackings, we don't know. All we know is that after he was tortured in some Eastern European prison for three years and while America are holding his two sons, Yousef and Abed, aged 7 and 9 at the time of their arrest in 2002, the confession isn't worth a light.
How can that be - it was Bush along!!! Two brains? .......
One and a half.
Oh No here we go again, been waiting for this to creep back in. Fred if anything you are becoming predictable [disgust]
Another member of the clique along making personal attacks.
Are you saying that Israel did not benefit from 9/11 or are you just saying that everyone should keep quiet about it?
9/11 simply occurred because of a terrorist act, Princess Diana simply died in a roadcrash brought on by alcohol, JFK simply died because of a lone nut with a gun.
Then why not just have a full inquiry including the things the other inquiries ignored and where the judges arn't appointed by the main beneficiaries of the crime.
Then why not just have a full inquiry including the things the other inquiries ignored and where the judges arn't appointed by the main beneficiaries of the crime.
Well the weakness in your point of view is that you are convinced that a crime has been committed rather than it is worthy of having an inquiry to take place. So the net outcome will either vindicate/unsupport your beliefs rather than find the factual truth. Enjoy your new religion pal;)
Another member of the clique along making personal attacks.
Are you saying that Israel did not benefit from 9/11 or are you just saying that everyone should keep quiet about it?
So anyone that does not believe you and your ilk is a clique Fred. I am not a member of any clique, more that I can say about you.
You re-introduced Israel into this thread as you have done previously in another thread and we all know the result of that one. I have no axe to grind with Israel.
What I am on about is your constant repitition of a now (in my eyes) a boring subject.
Trying to remain neutral in your debate but it strikes me that to have an intelligent discussion requires that everybody has done their research and know exactly what they are talking about.
Fred seems to have done his research in only one aspect and doesn't seem to be willing to even consider another version of events other than it was an act of treason but fair play to him as some people attacking his viewpoint have not come up with a convincing argument against 'his' theories other than to resort to personal insults about his credibility.
I would do some research on both viewpoints but can not be bothered and I suppose apathy is a good thing as far as governments are concerned.
I think fred has some valid points and also some cookie ideas but as they say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
So anyone that does not believe you and your ilk is a clique Fred. I am not a member of any clique, more that I can say about you.
You re-introduced Israel into this thread as you have done previously in another thread and we all know the result of that one. I have no axe to grind with Israel.
What I am on about is your constant repitition of a now (in my eyes) a boring subject.
If you find the subject boring don't click on the thread.
Blazing Sporrans
16-Mar-07, 23:29
Don't we get pushy when we are running with the clique, I have a life you know.
Respond to what? the total abandonment of logic, your attempts to bully me into answering your strawman argument or the cliques attempts to label me as a conspiracy theorist?
Well that's two Boy Scouts badges completed.... bully AND clique member - and in one day too. Do I get anything for being in a clique? Don't I have to be initiated by someone? When does my membership card come? Am I allowed to be admitted into a clique without being consulted first, or does a singular nomination by fred suffice?
Anyway - I'll take this personal attack as fred's tacit acknowledgement that he cannot answer my question from #223 - not that he won't, because I'm sure that he would if he could - but that he can't. Perhaps we ought to draw the curtain on this thread, as fred's now doing his best to drag the point away from WTC7 and use 9/11 to bash Israel again. Much Israel does requires to be bashed, however I just can't find it in me to believe that 9/11 is a stick that they're deserving of..... (I wish I could find a yawning smiley)
I think fred has some valid points and also some cookie ideas but as they say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
All I'm looking for is the truth, me and a lot of other people.
At first the Bush administration refused any investigation whatsoever, a group of relatives of people who died on 9/11 formed the Family Steering Committee and campaigned for an inquiry, it took them 14 months, 70% of the questions they wanted answered were not answered, much of the rest is clearly implausible, any evidence which contradicted the official story was ignored.
There are a lot of different theories out there, some of them seem cookie to me but I don't rule them out, I keep an open mind. The idea that three buildings not only collapsed but were reduced to dust as a result of damage from the planes and fire is clearly ludicrous. Of the other theories controlled demolition using thermate to weaken girders and explosives to bring the buildings down is the least cookie theory I have seen and the one which fits what can be seen in the videos and what was said by eye witnesses. It is quite plausible, the buildings leaseholder had a very good motive and the opportunity. The only argument against that I've seen which carries any weight is that even the planes, the fire, the thermate and explosives added together could not produce enough energy to result in what happened to the WTC on 9/11.
Perhaps we ought to draw the curtain on this thread, as fred's now doing his best to drag the point away from WTC7 What, and lose the best entertainment I've come across for a long time. I've not laughed so much since I saw "The Ministry of Silly Thought - sorry - Walks".
As time goes on the sketches get sillier and sillier.
The real truth about what actually happened is not difficult to discover. Those who really do know what happened are fully aware that it was all due to the Big Bad Wolf and his family.
They huffed and they puffed and they blew them all down!
Quite simple to explain once you have got to the “Truth”.
Anyway - I'll take this personal attack as fred's tacit acknowledgement that he cannot answer my question from #223 - not that he won't, because I'm sure that he would if he could - but that he can't. Perhaps we ought to draw the curtain on this thread, as fred's now doing his best to drag the point away from WTC7 and use 9/11 to bash Israel again. Much Israel does requires to be bashed, however I just can't find it in me to believe that 9/11 is a stick that they're deserving of..... (I wish I could find a yawning smiley)
#223 is your strawman you answer it, I've never said the entire worlds media is involved in any conspiracy.
Who is this "we" who are going "draw the curtain on this thread"?
I used the word "Israel" once and you start screaming antisemitism, that is hardly any way to get to the truth. As it happens Israel was the chief suspect in the early days of the investigation, there is proof that they had prior knowledge of 9/11, five Israelies were the first arrested in connection with the attack and they were held for 71 days. At the very least it is known that they falsified evidence to make it look like Palestine was behind 9/11.
These are verifiable facts, the truth, you will ignore them you have no interest in truth, you can't explain how the BBC could report the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it fell, you can't explain the molten metal so you will accuse me of being an antisemite and somehow that will make the truth go away.
For those who wish to verify the "Fact" that Israelis were thought to be involved and arrested simply try Googling 9/11 Israelis arrested and check the results.
Blazing Sporrans
17-Mar-07, 10:16
#223 is your strawman you answer it...
That seems to be your usual tactic when you can't answer - where IS that yawning smiley when you need it most?
I used the word "Israel" once and you start screaming antisemitism, that is hardly any way to get to the truth.
Where have I screamed anti-semitism - oh hang on, it must be that sentence where I said "Much Israel does requires to be bashed..."
Good job we have you there to keep our realities in check fred!! ;) Or are you going off on a tangent to evade the point? Surely not.....
Blazing Sporrans
17-Mar-07, 10:19
For those who wish to verify the "Fact" that Israelis were thought to be involved and arrested simply try Googling 9/11 Israelis arrested and check the results.
Oh dear.... surely fred hasn't looked up a conspiracy site and believed everything he read just because it's a conspiracy theory? Surely not.....
For those who wish to verify the "Fact" that Israelis were thought to be involved and arrested simply try Googling 9/11 Israelis arrested and check the results.
And you will find that everything I said is true.
Are you claiming it didn't happen? Have you anything useful to add to this thread or are you just here to make up the cliques numbers?
9/11 simply occurred because of a terrorist act, Princess Diana simply died in a roadcrash brought on by alcohol, JFK simply died because of a lone nut with a gun.
And Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction, really was making a nuclear bomb, really was allied with Al Qaeda?
People are just unhappy with the simplicity of reality so they have to make up stories.
I haven't made anything up, I just state facts and ask for explanations.
And Saddam Hussein really did have weapons of mass destruction,
Yes he did, ask his old pal chemical ali about them.
He was planning on building a big gun to deploy the nuke as well.
Good job we have you there to keep our realities in check fred!! ;) Or are you going off on a tangent to evade the point? Surely not.....
Talking of evading points you seem to have totally ignored my question Who is this "we" who are going to "draw the curtain on this thread"?
And you will find that everything I said is true.
Are you claiming it didn't happen? Have you anything useful to add to this thread or are you just here to make up the cliques numbers?I found sources alright. They are there for anybody else to have a look at.
That fairly easy check just leads straight to the same old "Conspiracy" sites.
Al-Jazeera, which, of course is totally unbiased source, bases it's story about the Israelis on one article by a reporter for the "Austin American-Statesman", a local paper, written in November 2001.
Other sites quote the same single source.
As for having anything useful to say? Well, if that means do I intend to accept the ever more ridiculous inventions dreamt up by people who are by now scraping the bottom of the barrel in the hope that somebody, somewhere might just take them seriously, then, no, I have nothing to say to support them.
Clique? What Clique? Please say who the members of the "Clique" are. I hate being in a "clique" when I don't know who I am being Cliquish with.
Heres an old email i have from years ago regarding the number 11 theory. Do the little task at the end!!!!!!!
1) New York City has 11 letters
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy
the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.
This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:
1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5=11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9+1+1=11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9+1+1=11.
Sheer coincidence..?!
Read on and make up your own mind:
1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2+5+4=11.
2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2+5+4=11.
3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3+1+1+2+4 =11.
4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.
Now this is where things get totally eerie:
The most recognised symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:
''For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allahand lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."
That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.
Still unconvinced about all of this..?!
Try this and see how you feel afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:
Open Microsoft Word and do the following:
1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.
2. Highlight the Q33 NY.
3. Change the font size to 48.
4. Change the actual font to WINGDINGS
What do you think now..?!
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/wingdings-911.html
....where IS that yawning smiley when you need it most?
Here....
http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-4654.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)
Here are some more figures...
9th and 11th posts in this thread are by fred.
9th post on page 11 is by Rheghead.
There are four letters in "fred" and eight in "Rheghead" - 4+8=12 - there are 12 months in the year.
I'll look for some more....
Yes he did, ask his old pal chemical ali about them.
He was planning on building a big gun to deploy the nuke as well.
So where are these weapons of mass destruction? Why haven't they been found?
The fact is that the Bush administration lied and fabricated evidence in order to manufacture consent for an illegal invasion of an oil rich country. As a result of this going on for a million Iraqi civillians, 3,210 American servicemen and 133 British servicemen have died needlessly.
This is the same Bush administration which appointed the 9/11 Commission.
The "Bull" supergun?.......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/11/newsid_2477000/2477023.stm
Blazing Sporrans
17-Mar-07, 16:25
Talking of evading points you seem to have totally ignored my question Who is this "we" who are going to "draw the curtain on this thread"?
Sorry for confusing you again fred - by "we" I mean everybody - including you - or were you worried that you were being excluded from my newly established clique? :roll:
Blazing Sporrans
17-Mar-07, 16:28
The "Bull" supergun?.......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/11/newsid_2477000/2477023.stm
I'm disappointed in you MadPict. Imagine falling shamelessly for such obviously manufactured propaganda that would allow the west to believe that the late lamented Saddam's intentions were less than honourable.
Well I think it was just a bit of oil pipe myself - strapping a gun to a mountain makes it a bit hard to aim....
The "Bull" supergun?.......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/11/newsid_2477000/2477023.stm
The CBI at the time were howling for the Customs Officer, who found and stopped the Beeg Gun, blood, they wanted him put on suspention and dismissed. Luckily he was not:D
The fact is that the Bush administration lied and fabricated evidence in order to manufacture consent for an illegal invasion of an oil rich country.
Like faking photographs eh?:roll:
The CBI at the time were howling for the Customs Officer, who found and stopped the Beeg Gun, blood, they wanted him put on suspention and dismissed. Luckily he was not:D
The directors of Churchill Redman told the police they were acting on the instructions of MI5, the British government said they wern't. In court the directors provided proof that they were indeed acting on the instructions of MI5, the case was stopped.
The British government were prepared to commit perjury and see inocent men go to prison to cover themselves.
Like faking photographs eh?:roll:
It's bad enough JAWS behaving like a schoolgirl without you starting.
That the American and British governments lied to manufacture consent for an illegal war is a matter of record.
It's bad enough JAWS behaving like a schoolgirl without you starting.
That the American and British governments lied to manufacture consent for an illegal war is a matter of record.
Please state where the US and/orUK have admitted to lying in manufacturing a case for war. Yet you ignore the fact that the anti-bushies are making up information?
Please state where the US and/orUK have admitted to lying in manufacturing a case for war. Yet you ignore the fact that the anti-bushies are making up information?
If the test for a liar was whether they admit to it or not then there would be no liars. The test for a liar is if what they say turns out not to be true and it can be shown that they knew that when they said it.
You seem to have the same contempt for truth as the Bush administration has, you seem to think, as they do, that it can be manufactured, you seem to share their insane belief that deniability is the same as innocence.
Just last week a senior White House official, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice over the Bush Aministration's persectuion of a man who pointed out that what they were saying about Saddam buying uranium from South Africa was lies.
Yet confessions extracted with torture are seen as proof absolute, I look at the western world and wonder how we could have sunk so low, how we could have abandoned the very principles of civilisation. A former Senior Security Advisor to the Whitehouse in the Carter administration said that Bush and his administration suffer from Manichian Paranoia, they believe we are good and Islam is evil, they see themselves as morally superior and believe that moral superiority justifies immoral acts. Manichian Paranoia seems to be contageous.
I don't believe that there is a strong case that the Bush administration has actually manufactured evidence for war. Yet what I do see is anti-bushies making up fake photographs and lying about the Bush administration.
I don't believe that there is a strong case that the Bush administration has actually manufactured evidence for war. Yet what I do see is anti-bushies making up fake photographs and lying about the Bush administration.
You believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.
May I remind you of the leaked Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html) dated 23rd July 2002. Particularly the following paragraph:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Note "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Here is where you claim the meeting never took place and that the memo is a forgery I suppose, you will carry on ignoring evidence and making such ridiulous claims till Hell freezes over, you have no interest in truth, just in deniability.
You believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts.
May I remind you of the leaked Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html) dated 23rd July 2002. Particularly the following paragraph:
Note "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Here is where you claim the meeting never took place and that the memo is a forgery I suppose, you will carry on ignoring evidence and making such ridiulous claims till Hell freezes over, you have no interest in truth, just in deniability.
Sorry but I just don't see any evidence there that Bush lied. Keeping going fred, you are amusing.
In 2002/03 the US and UK governments constantly claimed that they had sure proof that Iraq has WMDs. As there were no WMDs at that time in Iraq, there cannot have been any sure proof about WMDs being there.
If there was no sure proof, the only logical consequence is that the US and UK governments have spread misinformation and lied.
They have lied to start a war.
In 2002/03 the US and UK governments constantly claimed that they had sure proof that Iraq has WMDs. As there were no WMDs at that time in Iraq, there cannot have been any sure proof about WMDs being there.
If there was no sure proof, the only logical consequence is that the US and UK governments have spread misinformation and lied.
They have lied to start a war.
I cannot remember US/UK making any such claims of sure proof at all but they did make a good case for war based on information that was available at the time. The fact that Saddam wasn't cooperating only served to fuel suspicions. I don't think sure proof was needed/required before war could be started.
Anyway to say a falsehood is not enough evidence for lying, you need to prove that they knew it was a falsehood at the time before you can prove that Bush/Blair lied.
Your logic is thus seriously flawed...
I cannot remember US/UK making any such claims of sure proof at all but they did make a good case for war based on information that was available at the time. The fact that Saddam wasn't cooperating only served to fuel suspicions. I don't think sure proof was needed/required before war could be started.
Anyway to say a falsehood is not enough evidence for lying, you need to prove that they knew it was a falsehood at the time before you can prove that Bush/Blair lied.
Your logic is thus seriously flawed...
I can fairly well remember the claims that the US and UK government knew that there are WMDs in Iraq. The sure proof they claimed to have was claimed to be so secret they could not show to anyone. They told lies and commited the worst crime that is - they started a war - based on those lies.
They told the UN security council that they know of WMDs.
They also clamed that Iraq was a safe harbour for Al Quaida. It is well established by now that this claim was also a lie, unless Bush and Blair really believed in it. They probably didn't, they lied.
Rheghead if you can't remember those claims that does not mean they weren't made. The news were full of those claims and everyone who doubted them was branded a coward. Having been in New York during the run up to the war I can fairly well remember what was going on.
Nothing but lies from Bush and Blair.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.