9/11/01.. Government Set-Up?

This picture describes the Bush administration


Sorry I just felt like posting that and this thread seemed like it would fit =/

As me for me I am still undecided on whether or not I actually believe 9/11 conspiracy since a lot of the theories have been debunked =/

 

The air trapped in the topmost floors, with much less pressure above them, suddenly exploded upwards, stopping the collapse of concrete, and blowing it back up?

You just need thermate stuck in by some of the columns.

 

I believe the american government had something to do with 9/11. Threw history the US hasn't helped any one unless they are getting something out of it. Look at the cold war, They gave away close to 13B USD to countries to help them rebuild, This was also to stop the USSR spreading communism, Aswell as giving the USA richer countries to trade with etc.

My real names means "Gift from god."

Is that enough?

 

My real name is Extremely Large Penis, therefore I absolutely must have an Extremely Large Penis. That absolutely makes sense, because the person who named me Extremely Large Penis actually knew I would have an Extremely Large Penis before I had an Extremely Large Penis.

 

I feel that explosives were planted in the building, whether by the US government or not I don't know but a building wouldn't collapse that quickly if a plane had collided with it. The buildings had collapsed far quicker because I guess there had been explosives rigged to blow.

 

Find engineering genius able to rig the twin towers with explosives and get away completely unnoticed without a trace; the US government? Besides, where's your source on the official scenario being impossible? I can guess.

Construction work when, where, and for how long? I seriously doubt that you have read anything about it except what you found on some 9/11-truth website. It takes days of work to rig a building up for demolition.

On whose authority are you basing your claims? I've seen so many 9/11 "expert physicists" making claims that it fails to amuse me.

The beams of the towers didn't melt, they lost integrity and buckled as they weakened during the fires.

Here's a physics question for you - how do you suppose explosives were distributed in order to pulverise the vast majority structural concrete of the tower to dust?

If the crazy demolition geniuses were to have done anything, they would have placed small charges onto the hundreds of structural components necessary for maintaining the structure's integrity... Not somehow stashed enough explosives in there to create destruction orders of magnitude higher than the gpe of the towers.

Even the conspiracy nuts will agree that it is a false premise:

Code:

Thus, the
pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false
premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
(as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam
destroying the Towers).

There was a great deal of drywall in the towers, and so the clouds of dust you see in the collapse isn't all pulverized concrete, you know.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...re-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

Again, your claim about the the concrete being pulverized makes no sense in the context of a controlled demolition. I think imploded is a more appropriate term than exploded. Furthermore, the collapses clearly initiates about the point where the planes impact; the building everywhere above the critical collapsing floor would have accelerated downwards, impinging on the already weakened lower floors, causing those in turn to collapse; creating a self-sustaining collapse.

Bear in mind that the buildings did not collapse immediately, but rather fires raged in them for hours, weakening supporting columns, particularly around the areas where the planes hit (and caused the most damage).

Failure of a few key support columns in WTC7 (which was the the most 'symmetrical' of the collapses) could have triggered this sort of collapse.

 

Uhm.. Eww..

Ever heard of government conspiracy?

 

We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for

Who do you think I'm quoting here? That's right, bin Laden himself. Do you think the US government predicted what he was going to do, and then decided to work with him without him knowing? Bin Laden would either be insulted or delighted, to hear your argument. How do you reconcile his version of events with your own?

You claim the burden of proof lies on the side of the argument which doesn't have to dismiss the statements made by the terrorists responsible for flying planes into the buildings :laugh:

You have yet to tie the US government into your argument anywhere, where are the leaked documents showing that they had anything to do with planting bombs?

Remember that 9/11 was the first time aeroplanes were slammed into the Twin Towers at 450mph with nearly-full fueltanks. 9/11 was not caused by an uncontrolled chip-pan fire.

Here's an example video showing just how clueless these conspiracy theorists are. This video shows firemen apparently standing in the glow created by the "2000C molten steel" :laugh: .

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XXZ9G3gik

In this case, it sure as hell isn't molten steel, because otherwise those firemen would be writhing in agony; it's "simple physics".

Here's a link to a one-stop news source on demolitions having their say on the 9/11 collapse: http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Can you give me the paper in which all of this is calculated? You see - after collapse begins, the physics are the same, whether it's a controlled demolition or not. The fall doesn't have to crush stories below it, by the way, all it has to do is break the welds and joints on the beams. I suspect bad physics on your side.

I've got a quote in response to this which is just perfect:

This just makes me shake my head in wonder. First, the expulsion of air from the towers would have been pretty impressive, second, air rushing in to fill the space formerly occupied by the towers would have been equally impressive. Falling debris would also have displaced a large amount of air. Together they would have created a huge amount of turbulence, just what was seen at Ground Zero.

The drywall used around the central core of the towers was an inch and a half thick.

You also accuse me of ad-hominem towards the "conspiracy-nut", or as you would have it, physicist, who I quoted agreeing with me? Great argument! :laugh:

As for "pulverized" concrete - you must respect the inverse square law again. How the hell did enough explosives go off during the collapse of the towers to "pulverize" all the concrete without us noticing? The answer is that this level of "pulverization" is what you get from a gravity-driven regular collapse of skyscrapers like the twin towers, not from a controlled demolition.

Not only that, you haven't even read my previous posts properly, and so haven't noticed my justifications for the "force to project heavy material laterally outward".

You can't extrapolate what you see in collapses of small buildings to the twin towers. A small building might tilt intact, but it's a whole different ballgame when dealing with an enormous skyscraper. Furthermore, a general physics axiom isn't suitable for dealing with these situations. Look where you got yourself when you tried to use convection of the oceans against me in the global warming debate.

Haha, you're right. Implosion was indeed the wrong word for describing the collapse, since the buildings fell in an uncontrolled fashion, quite unlike a controlled demolition. Videos show large portions of the towers, some as high as 30-40 stories 'laying out'. This is why there was significant damage around the towers; the towers didn't telescope down.

:embar: I can't argue against the second law of thermodynamics, but you can't use it as an argument either. Application of a simple law to a complex situation is asking for trouble, but I'll ask about on some physics forums to see if there is anyone who can rip your argument apart.

The collapse of the towers wasn't a perfect vertical collapse anyway.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/nt_dust_aerial2c.jpg
http://911review.org/Wiki/im/WTC_Demolition.jpg

Yes, you pointed out your own fallacy quite well.

---

Anyway, I'd like you to address the two points which I think are key here:

1) What about Osama bin Laden's statements on 9/11?
2) Where is the actual evidence that the US government was involved?

 

You pretty much covered it all. I actually agree with you on something!

 

When the pentagon collapsed they're were missing surveillance tapes from across the street or something. Only the part where the pentagon collapsed was missing...

Gets you thinking..

 

This is so silly...this isn't even a debate. This is simply retarded ass conspiracy theories sparked by one persons argument. Maybe you should watch a movie that debates the original arguments of loose change.

 

If you believe alqueda did that then fine.. but you cant just sit there and tell me that.. that the only 2 steel buildings that have ever collapsed due to fire in history happened to fall in the exact same manor.. and both went straight down.. i mean seriously think about it.. if the building was on fire.. and part of it was hit by an airplane... wouldnt it tip over..especially considering the towers were hit in different spots... yet the same effect... and the building next to the WTC fell exactly like a demolition

 

That's the thing. I can understand if you were an actual physicist or someone who watched the towers fall, or basically someone of importance in any field that would help "solve" 9/11 (according to conspiracy theorists). But no one here is, the majority of us are teens who are extremely gullible and believe everything in Loose Change. I mean, you can't just believe everything you hear, first you must understand what you're arguing about, and then take necessary steps to make a decision.

 

I doubt they would kill all those US Civilians just to get Oil, The Americans are very proud, There dicks yeah... But they wouldn't go killing there own people just to get oil... OIL Vs LIVES! No one would choose oil... No one..

 

Asymmetric (lop-sided) structural damage to an essentially symmetrical structure CANNOT result in a symmetrical collapse. This is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states that orderly systems will tend toward maximum disorder (also known as the law of entropy). It is physically impossible for an asymmetrically damaged building to fall symmetrically, because this would require a disorderly system to become more orderly rather than more disorderly. In other words, it would require a further build-up of potential energy rather than a release of potential energy, which is impossible. <-- My brain did not get this at all

 

If I remember correctly, war means money in the economy, due to all the metal manufacterers, the vehicle/weapon factories, and everything else in that manner making a very nice profit, due to the government buying a lot of stuff to keep up the war effort.