Could Vancouver 2010 be the next 9/11?

[zeropointbug]

One man can't do anything, you need a collective force, of which you can only achieve by educating people... it's a bit tricky when they are sheeple instead.

[rawfuls]

Not to sprinkle the sprinkles over the ice cream, (lol), but doesn't steel have a higher melting temperature than jet fuel burns at? and also used some fire retardant over the steel?

Probably wrong...

[rootar]

yea give it a rest no one gives a rats ass about your damn rant. Go find some other place to do it.....

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by rawfuls

Not to sprinkle the sprinkles over the ice cream, (lol), but doesn't steel have a higher melting temperature than jet fuel burns at?

Probably wrong...

Yes, there is no way the amount of fuel left over from the explosion of the crash on the Towers was enough even remotely weaken the steel... nor would there be enough fuel (air) for the combustion to burn hot enough. They used some of the best steel alloy available for the structures core. Absolutely massive.

[zeropointbug]

Rootar, I don't give up... and I want to do it here cuz I like you guys. :)

[rootar]

well you "liking" us is making us dislike you man, just let it die off a little.

[_paralyzed_]

I don't know who was at fault for 9/11 but.....

Buildings don't fall straight down unless they are imploded. In order for that to happen after a plane hit is impossible, too many factors would have had to have been absolutely perfrect for a fire, fueled by jetfuel or anything, to implode a building. This happened twice on the same day!! Beyond impossible!! The charges in building 7 show there was prior knowledge and explosives in the buildings.

Building 7- was "pulled". I forget the name of the guy, but he was recorded saying, "pull it", and then building 7 was imploded by explosives. Which could not have been placed during the chaos of 9/11, they were there previously.

Nobody knows the answers or the truth. For anyone to close their minds to either side is by definition ignorant. To blindly accept what the media has given us as truth is silly, and to wholeheartedly get on the conspiracy theory bandwagon is nonsense.

I KNOW, as fact, both buildings did not fall into nice neat little piles without prior structural weakening and strategically placed charges. Building demolition is a science. Of this I'm sure.

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I've watched many many conspiracy theory videos, and many many "debunk the myth" videos.

I just can't see how someone can get on here and argue so vehomently against something that they haven't taken the time to study objectively and equally on all sides. That's what the KKK does.

And we are all intelligent people on this board, how can someone just dismiss the thoughts of an intelligent person as rubbish, without trying to see where they are coming from.

No name calling guys. If you think 9/11 is all hunky dory you have your blinders on.

If you claim to know the truth you are a liar.

Dunno what else to say, but don't close your mind and never be afraid to learn more.

[zeropointbug]

Thanks for posting Paralyzed... the guy you remember saying "pull it" was Larry Silverstein, and he made 9 billion big ones from insurance, not bad from a 15 million investment 6 months prior... he went to court afterwards to say it was two, not one attacks of terrorism, so he got double the payback. If he had any sympathy for the victims, if he had any morals at all, he would not even have that thought. Scum bag SOB.

[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by rootar

well you "liking" us is making us dislike you man, just let it die off a little.

Sorry bro, but I'm persistent.

I would have liked to see BrianG post on here, just like to hear your thoughts?

9/11 is definately not just a Terrorism incident. The terrorists was definately involved but maybe there was prior knowledge and the buildings were prepped to implode. Buildings that are so massive and made to stand so tall and mighty will not collapse at free-fall speed into neat little piles.

As for Building 7, its not even hit and it too collapse into a neat-little pile. It takes weeks of planning and explosives prep to 'pull' a building neatly into a pile, so no way it was done during 9/11 itself.

Also, a lot of reinforcements had a distinctive clean angular cut which is a signature of it being 'prepped' for demolition.

Just my thoughts. :)

[Finnster]

I'll prolly regret this later but...

The biggest flaw I see in these conspiracy theories is that they assume there is a binary choice in the versions of truth. There is the public "truth" A, and the "real" truth B. That's it. The theorists then attack A as a proxy for proving B, because ultimately B is poorly supported by evidence and logic and cannot stand under its own weight.

This is the same strategy of argument that exists for anti-evolutionists, and even global warming deniers to a degree. Oh look, we think there should be more transitional fossils, ergo creationism/Intelligent Design is true. Usually the weaker the counter argument, the more vicious the attacks.
No no, truth doesn't work that way.


So, please humor me in explaining exactly how this alter 9/11 scenario occurred?

How long did it take to plan? How many people were involved? Bush was in office 8mos by 911, did he have enough time to order up and sneak all those explosives in there? Let alone plan out the massive operation, all of which would need to work flawlessly unless the biggest treason and lie in the nation's history be exposed... He was pretty busy passing tax cuts for the wealthy then.
Was the 1992 WTC bombing by terrorists a clever rouse or only co-incidence? How did they recruit all these thousands of people into mass murder of their fellow countrymen? How did they keep them silent?

What was the end goals? War? Really? This was the easiest way of bringing that about? They couldn't figure out some simpler plan?
Lastly, you are staking this on a level of competency of gov't officials, politicians and other middling humans that I'm not sure anyone possesses, let alone George W F'ing Bush, probably the dumbest and most incompetent president we've had in this nations history (including you Millard Fillmore.) A serious weak link in a chain if there ever was one.

These too are gov't officials who have since let two idiot terrorists on planes with explosives, who also only failed due to their shear stupidity and incompetence, not because they were stopped by people who knew them to be coming. I think you are giving people far too much credit.

So please, try to make a sensible argument, esp w/o insulting people. I don't think there is one to be made. Evidence needs to be stronger than "d00d, no way, that $hits crazy." Prove that steel heated to many hundreds of degrees retains a necc strength rating. Prove that a truss structure can withstand the massive weight of a 40 story building falling on it and not fail w/o explosives. Show how such explosives can be rigged throughout a 110 floor building and no one notice all the wires and charges or anything. How much is actually needed btw? Where was the guy w/ the timer watching and setting them off?
You need to be able to better explain every shred of "planted" evidence, account for every act of deception, every person in the massive chain of deceit in a way that is at least plausible to a reasonable person.
In your own words please, not some kooky utube vid or some CnP from some nutty website. Of course, I don't mean all in one post, but at least something better than the nothing you've put forth so far.

[_paralyzed_]

Demolition is taught at colleges. I haven't taken the classes. I can't give you technical data or demolition theory. I can't make an educated formal argument. I can tell you that it is simply not possible for the buildings to have fallen the way they did from plane impacts and the subsequent fire. Every scenario has been tried in controlled environments, and that's why there are demolition experts that are licensed and accredited and very strictly regulated. Ask a demolitions expert, see what they say.

If I don't know something, I say "IMO" or "IIRC". I make it a point to either know what I'm talking about or make it clear that I don't.

My conspiracy theory lies more toward the owner of the building, who not only made out huge in insurance money, but now owns the single most expensive piece of property in North America.

I don't know what happened, I know planes can't make skyscrapers fall into nice neat little piles. Skyscrapers specifically built to withstand an airplane hit, because the erection and demolition of buildings is a science.

Food for thought: Even controlled demolitions go wrong. Is it plausible to you that there were two very controlled falls on the same day right next to each other as a result of a chaotic catastrophe?

[Finnster]

Originally Posted by _paralyzed_

Demolition is taught at colleges. I haven't taken the classes. I can't give you technical data or demolition theory. I can't make an educated formal argument. I can tell you that it is simply not possible for the buildings to have fallen the way they did from plane impacts and the subsequent fire. Every scenario has been tried in controlled environments, and that's why there are demolition experts that are licensed and accredited and very strictly regulated. Ask a demolitions expert, see what they say.

If I don't know something, I say "IMO" or "IIRC". I make it a point to either know what I'm talking about or make it clear that I don't.

My conspiracy theory lies more toward the owner of the building, who not only made out huge in insurance money, but now owns the single most expensive piece of property in North America.

I don't know what happened, I know planes can't make skyscrapers fall into nice neat little piles. Skyscrapers specifically built to withstand an airplane hit, because the erection and demolition of buildings is a science.

Food for thought: Even controlled demolitions go wrong. Is it plausible to you that there were two very controlled falls on the same day right next to each other as a result of a chaotic catastrophe?

With all due respect man, I don't think you have the expertise to say that. Its your opinion that it doesn't seem like the buildings should have fallen like that, but that has little bearing on the actual truth of the matter.

I can't wrap my head around parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and how going faster slows the passage of time. That does not mean its not true.

Anyway, my post was more aimed at the OP. But as an example of my point as you were the (un)fortunate one to respond. If it was Silverstein's master plan, how did he get a hold of hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives, get people to secretly rig them in his building (which 50000 people worked in, and hundreds of tourists visited every day) manage to hijack to 4 separate planes, all the while not getting caught and having enough money left over after the payoffs and materials to make the mass murder worth it? As far as insurance scams go, seems a bit complicated. Really, why bother bombing the pentagon then? One more chance to get caught, and get set on fire and shoved thru a woodchipper by an angry mob.

When looking at the implications and totality of these theories, it just doesn't make any sense.

[JThiessen]

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[rawfuls]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down. They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Ah, never thought about the fire bringing the steel structure down (in terms of temperature to melt)...