A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects, stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A professor emeritus of physics and former division chairman from a small community college said "My wife and I, transfixed in front of a TV as the horror of 9/11 unfolded, watched as the topmost, undamaged floors of the WTC South Tower started to gradually lean (rotate) in the direction of the damage due to impact. In an instant, the rotation stopped, and that which was rotating began to fall, as if only under the influence of gravity! The fulcrum was no longer there! I blurted out, "My god, they wired the building."
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use, has disputed the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member, is calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A professor of mathematics said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"
A number of structural engineers have questioned the government's explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers . As just two of many examples, two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A Danish professor of chemistry said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this"
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, said
Nicky - everything you show from eye witnesses matches the supported theory of natural collapse due to the circumstances.
The windows popping out...umm duh! There would be a ton of stress on them as the floors above were giving way and the structure was buckling.
The guy/wife observation of what they saw on TV...as soon the floors started to give the other side would fail instantaneously from supporting the additional load.
The guy referring to high pictched noise and popping sounds...ever heard a steel structure fail from metal fatigue?
Every single account there is simply a misunderstanding of the mechanism of structural failure.
You go on living in your little paranoid lala land, because obviously you can't be swayed by an intelligent discourse on how those structures actually work.
As far as tracking aircraft with the transponders turned off...you can do it, but it's a shitload more difficult in a high traffic area than it would be with them turned on.
I would like to see the transcript for thst supposed testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, because that sounds like something that was made up.
Nicky, I do know more about the subject than you do. Accept it. You have some experiental knowledge from some wargames you played, I have an actual education on the subject.
Oh, and by the way...in the REAL WORLD, when you cite a source, you ACTUALLY PROVIDE A SOURCE, not some heresay b.s. like what you've provided.
Their writeup is based on the actual investigation and not a bunch of half-cocked mumbo jumbo. By the way, looks like you're in the minority with your views on this one, bud. (evidently a whopping 16% of crazies think that there was a secret controlled demolition of the WTC)
TFGZ - that document you posted, from what I've seen, is actually suggesting to PRETEND to kill innocent people and to FAKE a terrorist threat. They would stage all kinds of stuff and use drones. No actual loss of life involved. That would be a BIG DIFFERENCE from what transpired on 9/11 (though if ONLY the Pentagon had been hit it might be a possible explanation).
Though, I think it was purely luck that it was an empty part of the building since they had a 20% of hitting it (and the terrorists wouldn't have known about the rennovation).
I was at home when it happened. I didn't find out about it until after the second plane hit the WTC. I myself wasn't involved in it, nor was anyone else I know. I feel about as safe as we were before, honestly. No reason to be paranoid about things. And I'm still convinced it wasn't a United States government conspiracy -- the Middle East is the culprit.
TFGZ - that document you posted, from what I've seen, is actually suggesting to PRETEND to kill innocent people and to FAKE a terrorist threat. They would stage all kinds of stuff and use drones. No actual loss of life involved. That would be a BIG DIFFERENCE from what transpired on 9/11 (though if ONLY the Pentagon had been hit it might be a possible explanation).
Though, I think it was purely luck that it was an empty part of the building since they had a 20% of hitting it (and the terrorists wouldn't have known about the rennovation).
I'm not actually suggesting any part of 911 was staged. What I was responsding to was your suggestion that it is absurd and ridiculous to believe the US government is capable of orchestrating such an event. That document simply demonstrates that they've given that exact concept serious consideration, and planning.
The stated goal of Operation Mongoose was securing justification for unilateral military intervention in the sovereign nation of Cuba. False pretenses leading to unilateral military intervention in a sovereign nation doesn't sound vaguely familiar to you?
American agents staging terrorist attacks to justify a war...is just that. What does it matter if the body count is real or simulated? In either case the public perception is that the event is real, and neither case is any less an act of deception to sway public opinion.
Also, executing boat loads of Cuban refugees was marked (real or simulated), so don't believe for a second that killing innocents was out of the ballpark.
To reiterated, I don't believe any aspect of 911 to have been staged in this manner. However, I'm informed enough to recognize that 911 wouldn't be the first time a random incident was repurposed specifically to justify a specific military intervention. "Remember the Maine."
I know that over history many events were repurposed to justify military intervention. I don't think 9/11 was one of them, though. There was a specific group involved, and that's who we went to go kill. Now, how that got extended to action in Iraq is another story entirely, but I don't believe that the original action in Afghanistan is suspect.
I can see your point about that document, since that would be a very deceptive way of getting to an end goal.
In general, though, most events in the world that were ever perceived to be conspiracies (implies that it was planned) are actually just cover ups for something that went wrong, or occurred unintentionally. Events in an open society like the US can only stay secret for a limited amount of time, and anyone who thinks otherwise watches too many movies.
Nicky - everything you show from eye witnesses matches the supported theory of natural collapse due to the circumstances.
The windows popping out...umm duh! There would be a ton of stress on them as the floors above were giving way and the structure was buckling.
The guy/wife observation of what they saw on TV...as soon the floors started to give the other side would fail instantaneously from supporting the additional load.
The guy referring to high pictched noise and popping sounds...ever heard a steel structure fail from metal fatigue?
Every single account there is simply a misunderstanding of the mechanism of structural failure.
You go on living in your little paranoid lala land, because obviously you can't be swayed by an intelligent discourse on how those structures actually work.
As far as tracking aircraft with the transponders turned off...you can do it, but it's a shitload more difficult in a high traffic area than it would be with them turned on.
I would like to see the transcript for thst supposed testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, because that sounds like something that was made up.
Nicky, I do know more about the subject than you do. Accept it. You have some experiental knowledge from some wargames you played, I have an actual education on the subject.
Oh, and by the way...in the REAL WORLD, when you cite a source, you ACTUALLY PROVIDE A SOURCE, not some heresay b.s. like what you've provided.
Paranoid lala land? ROFL It's called reality. Keep believeing what they tell you on tv and wikipedia. Wargames? You don't know wtf you're talking about. You don't know dick about structural demolisions if you think any of that was natural. I know what I know and I know that in 10 years you're going to feel like an idiot and this country will be paying iraq and afghanistan reperations for the next 100 years. You keep believing what you're told without checking the facts yourself. I'm sure you think kennedy was shot by one man and that god dictated the bible...
P.S. Jet fuel burns at 549.5 °F and steel melts at 2500°F. Explain that genius.
^ This is a typical response by a conspiracy theorist with no real evidence. "Keep believing what they tell you..." (but we SHOULD believe what you tell us) -- "You don't know..." "I know what I know..." and other completely empty statements. At this point you just shrug your shoulders and let the theorists go back to blogging or to the open mic nite or whatever.
Hey "genius" the steel didn't melt, it's a phenomenon called creep. It's a condition where metal under a load will plastically deform and fail well below the melting point.
Dan- I'm inclined to do just that...I just feel compelled to educate the ignorant masses about well understood structural and material sciences that they have obviously never been educated in.
^ This is a typical response by a conspiracy theorist with no real evidence. "Keep believing what they tell you..." (but we SHOULD believe what you tell us) -- "You don't know..." "I know what I know..." and other completely empty statements. At this point you just shrug your shoulders and let the theorists go back to blogging or to the open mic nite or whatever.
I just posted an entire page of evidence. Arch seems to things he's a professor on the subject so he was shown quotes of real professors.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Hey "genius" the steel didn't melt, it's a phenomenon called creep. It's a condition where metal under a load will plastically deform and fail well below the melting point.
Dan- I'm inclined to do just that...I just feel compelled to educate the ignorant masses about well understood structural and material sciences that they have obviously never been educated in.
The temperature level at which creep will initiate de- pends on the alloy. For aluminium creep may start at approximately 200°C and for low alloying steel at ap- proximately 370°C
LoL Whatever you say buddy. first of all the fire wouldn't have caused the steel to weaken to that extreme. Second of all, all of those buildings were creep tested when they went up. That is the law. Third of all the weight wouldn't have dropped both towers along with others straight now in a demolition fashion. They would have CONED which you should know about if you're such an expert on the subject. You guys just don't want to believe that people can be that evil. Believe the bullshit. That's your loss.
If you want to know who pulled off 9/11 all you have to do is look at who's profiting from it.
You have NO IDEA what a missile impact looks like. I do. I'd call that ignorant on your part.
Had just moved on sept 8th and was going crazy on the phone with comcast trying to get my cable installed.Side note got free cable for 6 months after it was finally installed on the 21st of sept.Found out about the wtc from a friend that called me from work.
Do you even know what "creep testing" is? You should cite the ordinance if you claim it's a law. Creep testing involves placing a test coupon of an alloy or material under stress in a lab. It has nothing to do with testing a complete structure in the real world.
Also, you didn't post a page of evidence. You posted a page of heavily biased garbage that you probably farmed from a conspiracy theorist website. Without names and proper reference all of that stuff could be made up. Even if it's not...chew on this: just because they found a few professors to offer a ridiculous dissenting opinion, the actual study in the REAL reference I provided involved quite a few more engineers and professors. I'm sure for every professor you "cite" I could find at least 100 who would say the odd man out is a dumbass for not looking at the actual facts and educating themselves about the actual failure mechanism.
Why would you think I have no idea what a missile impact looks like? You seem not to realize that aerospace engineers are the weapons developers of the world.
You continue to exhibit a minimal understanding of the physical phenomena at play, since you obviously have no concept about how structurally comprimised a buildling would become with that much fuel burning inside of it. Or the buckling mechanism that would put those upper floors into free-fall straight down through the rest of the buildling.
I would hate to see how you talk to your physician after you do some half-assed research on WebMD, since you seem to be incapable of deferring to people who are in possession of greater knowledge on a subject.
I know that over history many events were repurposed to justify military intervention. I don't think 9/11 was one of them, though. There was a specific group involved, and that's who we went to go kill. Now, how that got extended to action in Iraq is another story entirely, but I don't believe that the original action in Afghanistan is suspect.
You actually believe a war in Iraq was remotely possible without 9/11? The Bush Doctrine wouldn't exist, so neither would the foreign policy that allowed it to happen. A year and half of anti-Saddam propoganda following 9/11 and we invaded Iraq. You can't defend the pretexts used in the lead-up, there was no wmds and no significant terrorist presence in Iraq. Not that those pretexts have been static, they've changed several times over the course of the war. 9/11 gave us a war in Afghanistan, but if you go back I think you'll find this administration immediately tried to sell the public on the idea of an Iraq campaign.
Our action in Afghanistan isn't suspect? Really?
9/11 wasn't part of larger campaign, it was an isolated attack. Yet we committed all of our military forces to, not just one, but two wars. Our reaction to terrorists in the past has been slightly more straightforward. We'd send in special forces to execute the leaders, and seize any an all assets possible. This cut off the head and watch the body die approach has historically been incredibly effective. Was it really an accident that this administration opted to instead go with a form of long-term engagement? All you need to examine is who really benifits from this style of warfare, compared to what is actually being accomplished to understand the motivation.
It's a pretty big stretch to say that the desire to make war in Iraq was sufficient to orchestrate 9/11, carry public support of first one war, and THEN a second war based on faulty intelligence.
I don't doubt that the administration seized the opportunity to get the ball rolling in Iraq, but there is no way that they put together the tragedy of 9/11 to do it. Though they have certainly abused that event to meet their end goals.
Just curious, when was the "cut off the head" approach used effectively against terrorists? I've never looked into it, so I'm not familiar with any specific events.
EDIT: as for motivation...who do you think actually benefits from the current arrangement? No need to pussyfoot around the subject, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on the matter, explicity.
One example is Operation el Dorado Canyon, which was our response to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's sponsored bombing of a German disco, killing and wounding US servicemen, the last of a long series of Libyan sponsored attacks on US interests during the 80's. We dropped a bomb on Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's house labeled "This one is for his mama". He lived, but certain family members didn't. There was very little Libyan sponsored terror against US interests after that. Pan-Am 103 excluded, but they refused to accept responsibility for that until 2004.
Who profits? Every contractor involved profits. We've privatized warfare, and it's a cost-plus war. Not to mention hundreds of billions in post-war contracts. The spending is public and compiled below:
Why would you think I have no idea what a missile impact looks like? You seem not to realize that aerospace engineers are the weapons developers of the world.
Structural dynamics and aeroelasticity, control design, model and simulation design and analyses, component design, C/C++, MATLAB, Simulink/RTW, CATIA
That's from your resume. How the hell would you know what a missile impact looks like? You don't learn that at georgia tech. As an aurospace engineer you should know exactly what happens when a plane hits a building but you don't so I question your knowledge on the subject. Look at a picture of a a crater left by a BLU-113 Super Penetrator rocket and then take a look at the pentagon aftermath.
"On March 8, 2002 five video frames captured by a security camera at the Pentagon were leaked. Only the first frame preceded the impact: this frame shows what may be an object heading for the Pentagon. On May 16, 2006, the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request.[56][57] However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos are also inconclusive, thus keeping the "No Boeing" theory alive. Security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station, from a local Doubletree Hotel, and from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was swiftly confiscated by the FBI. The footage from both the gas station and the hotel were later released following successful FOIA Requests, but neither captured the impact."
If you've ever been to the Pentagon you will know there are atleast 20 cameras around the army section of building.
"In suggesting motives for the US government to have carried out the attacks, Professor David Ray Griffin claims that a global "Pax Americana" was a dream held by many members of the Bush Administration. This dream was first articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, in a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony"[164] and has been echoed in the writings of the neoconservatives. In his lecture, "9/11: The Myth and the Reality," Griffin states that:
"Achieving this goal (American global hegemony) would require four things: [1] getting control of the world's oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East--and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. [2] a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would become central. [3] an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for weaponizing space. [4] to modify the doctrine of preemptive attack, so that America would be able to attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat. These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth: an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies."[165]
Some of the most widely cited writings of the neoconservatives come from the think-tank the "Project for a New American Century". This group contained numerous members of the Bush Administration including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. A document published in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" called for increased spending in order to transform the military. It goes on to say:
"This process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."[166][167]
Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement argues that this is "taken completely out of context", and that the "transformation" referenced in the paper is explicitly stated to be a decades-long process to turn the Cold War-era military into a "new, modern military" which could deal with more localized conflicts.[168] He further ridicules this position by pointing out that, for this to be evidence of motive, that either those responsible decided to openly state their objectives, or read the paper in 2000 and quickly laid the groundwork for the 9/11 attacks using it as inspiration.[168] In either case, he argues that this is a form of "defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America's ruling class" and constitutes part of a "completely and utterly retarded" narrative to explain the attacks.[168]
The War on Terror is seen by many as the pretext for achieving the goals of the neoconservatives. Jim Hoffman is among those who claim that a key motive for 9/11 may have been to create a "perpetual threat", terrorism, to function in a similar way to communism during the Cold War.[169] He cites an article in the Washington Post in which Dick Cheney says of the War on Terror: "It may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."[170]
Since 9/11, the US government have introduced numerous acts of congress which, some people say, is an invasion of their civil liberties and are "in direct contradiction with the US constitution". These claims normally refer to the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Bill, the militarization of the police force, the nullification of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the changes in laws relating to rights of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay." Since you're such a fan of wikipedia "facts" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy
Nicky...I'm flattered that you actually did a little research on the internet and found my resume somewhere. Those items you mention are my specialties, and are certainly do not encompass everything I know. It's rather presumptious of you to make assumptions regarding my education at GT. And again, I ask, what is an airplane carrying 100's of thousands of pounds of fuel, if not a missile? Why would you expect the effects to be any different?
It's obvious that for whatever reason you've latched on to what these very few outspoken conspiracy theorists have to say. You're obviously not open to actually understanding the physical mechanisms for what occurred, so I'm not sure why you perpetuate the argument by bringing in a bunch of slant from a couple of WAY out there authors. That hardly counts as credible research.
Since you mentioned it: (from the link YOU supplied)
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation.[202] A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue.[203]
Seems like the psychologists say you're prone to this type of delusion from an inability to cope properly. You might want to get that looked at.
Who profits? Every contractor involved profits. We've privatized warfare, and it's a cost-plus war. Not to mention hundreds of billions in post-war contracts. The spending is public and compiled below:
Well, I've got a horse in that race, so you'll probably discount whatever I say as biased. I thought you were going to go off on some ridiculous BS about Big Oil starting the war, or something. Yes, obviously the contractors stand to profit. This is a ridiculously lucrative thing we're doing...for the right people. But I am very doubtful that the contractors had anything to do with starting the whole thing. They were just in the right place, at the right time.
This is a ridiculously lucrative thing we're doing...for the right people.
I'm utterly baffled that you would term war-profiteers as 'the right people'. Don't you understand the implications of making war profitable? War should be a last resort, and the symbol of diplomatic failure on the part of one or both of the parties involved....it shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme.
As far as resources being a motivation...I'm sure it's just a coincidence that those two countries are energy resource rich. Just as I'm also certain that that mini-war in Georgia had absolutely nothing at all to do with a pipeline war. Forget that I ever suggested Georgia and Afghanistan are energy bridges, the conflicts have nothing to do with that.
I think you're taking what I said incorrectly. I'm not saying the "right" people in terms of being correct, but the right people in terms of being in the right place at the right time. That comment has absolutely nothing to do with the correctness of the situation.
Afghanistan is not an energy rich nation. It is a cross-roads between the continents, though, so it's certainly a strategic position to control.
Umm, we're not at war in Georgia. That's Russia with their panties in a wad over there.
Nicky...I'm flattered that you actually did a little research on the internet and found my resume somewhere. Those items you mention are my specialties, and are certainly do not encompass everything I know. It's rather presumptious of you to make assumptions regarding my education at GT. And again, I ask, what is an airplane carrying 100's of thousands of pounds of fuel, if not a missile? Why would you expect the effects to be any different?
It's obvious that for whatever reason you've latched on to what these very few outspoken conspiracy theorists have to say. You're obviously not open to actually understanding the physical mechanisms for what occurred, so I'm not sure why you perpetuate the argument by bringing in a bunch of slant from a couple of WAY out there authors. That hardly counts as credible research.
Since you mentioned it: (from the link YOU supplied)
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation.[202] A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue.[203]
Seems like the psychologists say you're prone to this type of delusion from an inability to cope properly. You might want to get that looked at.
Oh I have plenty of info on you Nate. Out of respect to NA's forum rules I'll keep that to myself.
Delusion? I've supplied plenty of evidence. Show me some proof that a plane hit the pentagon. You're the only delusional one here if you seriously think a plane full of fuel is a missile. That's the most reduculous thing you've said yet. Instead of being a mindless media lemming, do some research of your own and you might learn something other than what Bill O'rielly tells you to know. Maybe you should have majored in structural engineering instead of aerospace engineering before talking about shit you don't know a thing about.
Afghanistan has 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves within it's borders, but it's importance an energy state is more complicated than what lies within it's ground. You said it's a cross-roads, which is an energy bridge, which makes it strategically important. But the prize is in the Caspian Sea where an estimated 16% of the potential global reserves of oil is located, as well vast amounts of natural gas. The US has been trying to promote a pipeline from the Caspian that would skirt Russia, and continue to disenfrancise Iran for decades. One way is to go through Georgia. That's what the conflict with Russia was about. The US didn't give Georgia $1 billion in aid, and promise to help them gain membership into NATO because we give a rats ass about the plight of South Ossetia. The other way to pipe those exports would be through Afghanistan. The trans-afghan pipeline blueprinted by the Taliban is now ours, and the trans-caspian pipeline is almost a reality. And in light of the recent developements in Georgia, where Russia demonstrated for the world they can walk up and shut off the pipe whenever they like, the Afghan energy brigde is becoming increasingly attractive.
Comments
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects, stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A professor emeritus of physics and former division chairman from a small community college said "My wife and I, transfixed in front of a TV as the horror of 9/11 unfolded, watched as the topmost, undamaged floors of the WTC South Tower started to gradually lean (rotate) in the direction of the damage due to impact. In an instant, the rotation stopped, and that which was rotating began to fall, as if only under the influence of gravity! The fulcrum was no longer there! I blurted out, "My god, they wired the building."
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use, has disputed the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member, is calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A professor of mathematics said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"
A number of structural engineers have questioned the government's explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers . As just two of many examples, two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A Danish professor of chemistry said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this"
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, said
The windows popping out...umm duh! There would be a ton of stress on them as the floors above were giving way and the structure was buckling.
The guy/wife observation of what they saw on TV...as soon the floors started to give the other side would fail instantaneously from supporting the additional load.
The guy referring to high pictched noise and popping sounds...ever heard a steel structure fail from metal fatigue?
Every single account there is simply a misunderstanding of the mechanism of structural failure.
You go on living in your little paranoid lala land, because obviously you can't be swayed by an intelligent discourse on how those structures actually work.
As far as tracking aircraft with the transponders turned off...you can do it, but it's a shitload more difficult in a high traffic area than it would be with them turned on.
I would like to see the transcript for thst supposed testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, because that sounds like something that was made up.
Nicky, I do know more about the subject than you do. Accept it. You have some experiental knowledge from some wargames you played, I have an actual education on the subject.
Oh, and by the way...in the REAL WORLD, when you cite a source, you ACTUALLY PROVIDE A SOURCE, not some heresay b.s. like what you've provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Their writeup is based on the actual investigation and not a bunch of half-cocked mumbo jumbo. By the way, looks like you're in the minority with your views on this one, bud. (evidently a whopping 16% of crazies think that there was a secret controlled demolition of the WTC)
Though, I think it was purely luck that it was an empty part of the building since they had a 20% of hitting it (and the terrorists wouldn't have known about the rennovation).
TFGZ - that document you posted, from what I've seen, is actually suggesting to PRETEND to kill innocent people and to FAKE a terrorist threat. They would stage all kinds of stuff and use drones. No actual loss of life involved. That would be a BIG DIFFERENCE from what transpired on 9/11 (though if ONLY the Pentagon had been hit it might be a possible explanation).
Though, I think it was purely luck that it was an empty part of the building since they had a 20% of hitting it (and the terrorists wouldn't have known about the rennovation).
I'm not actually suggesting any part of 911 was staged. What I was responsding to was your suggestion that it is absurd and ridiculous to believe the US government is capable of orchestrating such an event. That document simply demonstrates that they've given that exact concept serious consideration, and planning.
The stated goal of Operation Mongoose was securing justification for unilateral military intervention in the sovereign nation of Cuba. False pretenses leading to unilateral military intervention in a sovereign nation doesn't sound vaguely familiar to you?
American agents staging terrorist attacks to justify a war...is just that. What does it matter if the body count is real or simulated? In either case the public perception is that the event is real, and neither case is any less an act of deception to sway public opinion.
Also, executing boat loads of Cuban refugees was marked (real or simulated), so don't believe for a second that killing innocents was out of the ballpark.
To reiterated, I don't believe any aspect of 911 to have been staged in this manner. However, I'm informed enough to recognize that 911 wouldn't be the first time a random incident was repurposed specifically to justify a specific military intervention. "Remember the Maine."
I can see your point about that document, since that would be a very deceptive way of getting to an end goal.
In general, though, most events in the world that were ever perceived to be conspiracies (implies that it was planned) are actually just cover ups for something that went wrong, or occurred unintentionally. Events in an open society like the US can only stay secret for a limited amount of time, and anyone who thinks otherwise watches too many movies.
Nicky - everything you show from eye witnesses matches the supported theory of natural collapse due to the circumstances.
The windows popping out...umm duh! There would be a ton of stress on them as the floors above were giving way and the structure was buckling.
The guy/wife observation of what they saw on TV...as soon the floors started to give the other side would fail instantaneously from supporting the additional load.
The guy referring to high pictched noise and popping sounds...ever heard a steel structure fail from metal fatigue?
Every single account there is simply a misunderstanding of the mechanism of structural failure.
You go on living in your little paranoid lala land, because obviously you can't be swayed by an intelligent discourse on how those structures actually work.
As far as tracking aircraft with the transponders turned off...you can do it, but it's a shitload more difficult in a high traffic area than it would be with them turned on.
I would like to see the transcript for thst supposed testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, because that sounds like something that was made up.
Nicky, I do know more about the subject than you do. Accept it. You have some experiental knowledge from some wargames you played, I have an actual education on the subject.
Oh, and by the way...in the REAL WORLD, when you cite a source, you ACTUALLY PROVIDE A SOURCE, not some heresay b.s. like what you've provided.
Paranoid lala land? ROFL It's called reality. Keep believeing what they tell you on tv and wikipedia. Wargames? You don't know wtf you're talking about. You don't know dick about structural demolisions if you think any of that was natural. I know what I know and I know that in 10 years you're going to feel like an idiot and this country will be paying iraq and afghanistan reperations for the next 100 years. You keep believing what you're told without checking the facts yourself. I'm sure you think kennedy was shot by one man and that god dictated the bible...
P.S.
Jet fuel burns at 549.5 °F and steel melts at 2500°F. Explain that genius.
Dan- I'm inclined to do just that...I just feel compelled to educate the ignorant masses about well understood structural and material sciences that they have obviously never been educated in.
^ This is a typical response by a conspiracy theorist with no real evidence. "Keep believing what they tell you..." (but we SHOULD believe what you tell us) -- "You don't know..." "I know what I know..." and other completely empty statements. At this point you just shrug your shoulders and let the theorists go back to blogging or to the open mic nite or whatever.
I just posted an entire page of evidence. Arch seems to things he's a professor on the subject so he was shown quotes of real professors.
Hey "genius" the steel didn't melt, it's a phenomenon called creep. It's a condition where metal under a load will plastically deform and fail well below the melting point.
Dan- I'm inclined to do just that...I just feel compelled to educate the ignorant masses about well understood structural and material sciences that they have obviously never been educated in.
The temperature level at which creep will initiate de-
pends on the alloy. For aluminium creep may start at
approximately 200°C and for low alloying steel at ap-
proximately 370°C
LoL Whatever you say buddy. first of all the fire wouldn't have caused the steel to weaken to that extreme. Second of all, all of those buildings were creep tested when they went up. That is the law. Third of all the weight wouldn't have dropped both towers along with others straight now in a demolition fashion. They would have CONED which you should know about if you're such an expert on the subject. You guys just don't want to believe that people can be that evil. Believe the bullshit. That's your loss.
If you want to know who pulled off 9/11 all you have to do is look at who's profiting from it.
You have NO IDEA what a missile impact looks like. I do. I'd call that ignorant on your part.
Do you even know what "creep testing" is? You should cite the ordinance if you claim it's a law.
Creep testing involves placing a test coupon of an alloy or material under stress in a lab. It has nothing to do with testing a complete structure in the real world.
Also, you didn't post a page of evidence. You posted a page of heavily biased garbage that you probably farmed from a conspiracy theorist website. Without names and proper reference all of that stuff could be made up. Even if it's not...chew on this: just because they found a few professors to offer a ridiculous dissenting opinion, the actual study in the REAL reference I provided involved quite a few more engineers and professors. I'm sure for every professor you "cite" I could find at least 100 who would say the odd man out is a dumbass for not looking at the actual facts and educating themselves about the actual failure mechanism.
Why would you think I have no idea what a missile impact looks like? You seem not to realize that aerospace engineers are the weapons developers of the world.
You continue to exhibit a minimal understanding of the physical phenomena at play, since you obviously have no concept about how structurally comprimised a buildling would become with that much fuel burning inside of it. Or the buckling mechanism that would put those upper floors into free-fall straight down through the rest of the buildling.
I would hate to see how you talk to your physician after you do some half-assed research on WebMD, since you seem to be incapable of deferring to people who are in possession of greater knowledge on a subject.
EDIT for typo
I know that over history many events were repurposed to justify military intervention. I don't think 9/11 was one of them, though. There was a specific group involved, and that's who we went to go kill. Now, how that got extended to action in Iraq is another story entirely, but I don't believe that the original action in Afghanistan is suspect.
You actually believe a war in Iraq was remotely possible without 9/11? The Bush Doctrine wouldn't exist, so neither would the foreign policy that allowed it to happen. A year and half of anti-Saddam propoganda following 9/11 and we invaded Iraq. You can't defend the pretexts used in the lead-up, there was no wmds and no significant terrorist presence in Iraq. Not that those pretexts have been static, they've changed several times over the course of the war. 9/11 gave us a war in Afghanistan, but if you go back I think you'll find this administration immediately tried to sell the public on the idea of an Iraq campaign.
Our action in Afghanistan isn't suspect? Really?
9/11 wasn't part of larger campaign, it was an isolated attack. Yet we committed all of our military forces to, not just one, but two wars. Our reaction to terrorists in the past has been slightly more straightforward. We'd send in special forces to execute the leaders, and seize any an all assets possible. This cut off the head and watch the body die approach has historically been incredibly effective. Was it really an accident that this administration opted to instead go with a form of long-term engagement? All you need to examine is who really benifits from this style of warfare, compared to what is actually being accomplished to understand the motivation.
It's a pretty big stretch to say that the desire to make war in Iraq was sufficient to orchestrate 9/11, carry public support of first one war, and THEN a second war based on faulty intelligence.
I don't doubt that the administration seized the opportunity to get the ball rolling in Iraq, but there is no way that they put together the tragedy of 9/11 to do it. Though they have certainly abused that event to meet their end goals.
Just curious, when was the "cut off the head" approach used effectively against terrorists? I've never looked into it, so I'm not familiar with any specific events.
EDIT: as for motivation...who do you think actually benefits from the current arrangement? No need to pussyfoot around the subject, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on the matter, explicity.
Who profits? Every contractor involved profits. We've privatized warfare, and it's a cost-plus war. Not to mention hundreds of billions in post-war contracts. The spending is public and compiled below:
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro
Structural dynamics and aeroelasticity, control design, model and simulation design and analyses, component design, C/C++, MATLAB, Simulink/RTW, CATIA
That's from your resume. How the hell would you know what a missile impact looks like? You don't learn that at georgia tech. As an aurospace engineer you should know exactly what happens when a plane hits a building but you don't so I question your knowledge on the subject. Look at a picture of a a crater left by a BLU-113 Super Penetrator rocket and then take a look at the pentagon aftermath.
"On March 8, 2002 five video frames captured by a security camera at the Pentagon were leaked. Only the first frame preceded the impact: this frame shows what may be an object heading for the Pentagon. On May 16, 2006, the security camera footage was released as part of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request.[56][57] However, due to a low number of frames per second, the videos are also inconclusive, thus keeping the "No Boeing" theory alive. Security camera footage from a nearby Citgo gas station, from a local Doubletree Hotel, and from the Virginia Department of Transportation, was swiftly confiscated by the FBI. The footage from both the gas station and the hotel were later released following successful FOIA Requests, but neither captured the impact."
If you've ever been to the Pentagon you will know there are atleast 20 cameras around the army section of building.
"In suggesting motives for the US government to have carried out the attacks, Professor David Ray Griffin claims that a global "Pax Americana" was a dream held by many members of the Bush Administration. This dream was first articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, in a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony"[164] and has been echoed in the writings of the neoconservatives. In his lecture, "9/11: The Myth and the Reality," Griffin states that:
"Achieving this goal (American global hegemony) would require four things: [1] getting control of the world's oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East--and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. [2] a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would become central. [3] an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for weaponizing space. [4] to modify the doctrine of preemptive attack, so that America would be able to attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat. These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth: an event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies."[165]
Some of the most widely cited writings of the neoconservatives come from the think-tank the "Project for a New American Century". This group contained numerous members of the Bush Administration including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. A document published in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" called for increased spending in order to transform the military. It goes on to say:
"This process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."[166][167]
Matt Taibbi, in his book The Great Derangement argues that this is "taken completely out of context", and that the "transformation" referenced in the paper is explicitly stated to be a decades-long process to turn the Cold War-era military into a "new, modern military" which could deal with more localized conflicts.[168] He further ridicules this position by pointing out that, for this to be evidence of motive, that either those responsible decided to openly state their objectives, or read the paper in 2000 and quickly laid the groundwork for the 9/11 attacks using it as inspiration.[168] In either case, he argues that this is a form of "defiant unfamiliarity with the actual character of America's ruling class" and constitutes part of a "completely and utterly retarded" narrative to explain the attacks.[168]
The War on Terror is seen by many as the pretext for achieving the goals of the neoconservatives. Jim Hoffman is among those who claim that a key motive for 9/11 may have been to create a "perpetual threat", terrorism, to function in a similar way to communism during the Cold War.[169] He cites an article in the Washington Post in which Dick Cheney says of the War on Terror: "It may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."[170]
Since 9/11, the US government have introduced numerous acts of congress which, some people say, is an invasion of their civil liberties and are "in direct contradiction with the US constitution". These claims normally refer to the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Bill, the militarization of the police force, the nullification of the Posse Comitatus Act, and the changes in laws relating to rights of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay."
Since you're such a fan of wikipedia "facts" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy
It's obvious that for whatever reason you've latched on to what these very few outspoken conspiracy theorists have to say. You're obviously not open to actually understanding the physical mechanisms for what occurred, so I'm not sure why you perpetuate the argument by bringing in a bunch of slant from a couple of WAY out there authors. That hardly counts as credible research.
Since you mentioned it: (from the link YOU supplied)
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation.[202] A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue.[203]
Seems like the psychologists say you're prone to this type of delusion from an inability to cope properly. You might want to get that looked at.
Who profits? Every contractor involved profits. We've privatized warfare, and it's a cost-plus war. Not to mention hundreds of billions in post-war contracts. The spending is public and compiled below:
http://projects.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro
Well, I've got a horse in that race, so you'll probably discount whatever I say as biased. I thought you were going to go off on some ridiculous BS about Big Oil starting the war, or something. Yes, obviously the contractors stand to profit. This is a ridiculously lucrative thing we're doing...for the right people. But I am very doubtful that the contractors had anything to do with starting the whole thing. They were just in the right place, at the right time.
This is a ridiculously lucrative thing we're doing...for the right people.
I'm utterly baffled that you would term war-profiteers as 'the right people'. Don't you understand the implications of making war profitable? War should be a last resort, and the symbol of diplomatic failure on the part of one or both of the parties involved....it shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme.
As far as resources being a motivation...I'm sure it's just a coincidence that those two countries are energy resource rich. Just as I'm also certain that that mini-war in Georgia had absolutely nothing at all to do with a pipeline war. Forget that I ever suggested Georgia and Afghanistan are energy bridges, the conflicts have nothing to do with that.
Afghanistan is not an energy rich nation. It is a cross-roads between the continents, though, so it's certainly a strategic position to control.
Umm, we're not at war in Georgia. That's Russia with their panties in a wad over there.
Nicky...I'm flattered that you actually did a little research on the internet and found my resume somewhere. Those items you mention are my specialties, and are certainly do not encompass everything I know. It's rather presumptious of you to make assumptions regarding my education at GT. And again, I ask, what is an airplane carrying 100's of thousands of pounds of fuel, if not a missile? Why would you expect the effects to be any different?
It's obvious that for whatever reason you've latched on to what these very few outspoken conspiracy theorists have to say. You're obviously not open to actually understanding the physical mechanisms for what occurred, so I'm not sure why you perpetuate the argument by bringing in a bunch of slant from a couple of WAY out there authors. That hardly counts as credible research.
Since you mentioned it: (from the link YOU supplied)
Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation.[202] A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion." Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue.[203]
Seems like the psychologists say you're prone to this type of delusion from an inability to cope properly. You might want to get that looked at.
Oh I have plenty of info on you Nate. Out of respect to NA's forum rules I'll keep that to myself.
Delusion? I've supplied plenty of evidence. Show me some proof that a plane hit the pentagon. You're the only delusional one here if you seriously think a plane full of fuel is a missile. That's the most reduculous thing you've said yet. Instead of being a mindless media lemming, do some research of your own and you might learn something other than what Bill O'rielly tells you to know. Maybe you should have majored in structural engineering instead of aerospace engineering before talking about shit you don't know a thing about.
Nicky, are you threatening me? I really don't like the tone, and direction your'e taking with this.
To my recollection I don't have an compromising information floating around out there, but send me a PM if you'd like.
I certainly haven't made this personal, and have tried to keep it to a discussion of the facts.
At what cost, Kevin. At what cost.
Kevin filmed YOU, didn't he Nathan. I knew it. And "they" have it now.
At what cost, Kevin. At what cost.