So you don’t know who was in on the plan, you don’t know how many people were in on the plan (except that it didn’t have to be very many) but you know there WAS a plan. Not only that, but now you’ve added a person to tamper with the radar software (actually two people, since the military and civilians use separate radar systems.)
Look, you can’t have it both ways. It takes trained people to wire a building to implode. It takes trained people to launch a missile into the Pentagon. It takes trained people to prepare and fly the plane that shot down Flight 93 and feed false programs to fool the radar. Those people have to get their training somewhere. Someone has to falsify enough paperwork to account for missing arms. There have to be a few people in the middle so that if someone talks, they don’t immediately incriminate the mastermind.
Every one of those people has to be corrupt enough to participate, but incorruptable enough so that they don’t tell their spouses, co-workers, bar buddies, etc.
And after it’s all over, you have to either pay them enough to buy their silence, or kill them. Either way, that’s going to take other people. And it will take other people to take care of those people.
What is there in bigpappadiaz’s or Sent’s attributions that may be true on this matter? Admittedly, I’ve skimmed the rather longish thread; however, it seems to be that everything they’ve asserted has been blown out of the water.
I don’t even think that was the problem. The problem was that their names were not uncommon for Arabic names. So when the FBI gave the list, a few folks with the same name jumped up and said ‘hey! Not me! I’m alive’.
9/11 myths cover this, with links covering each alleged undead hijacker:
This info has been available for some time. Many CT’ers simply choose not to accept it.
So now we’ve gone downhill from ‘Molten Steel’ to ‘Hot, Glowing steel’. First of all, I see nothing in the picture shown that indicates Yellow, and much to indicate that the shot is at dusk and is red.
This site gives relative temps of steel and the corresponding color.
That is an incredibly gross oversimplification of the computer modelling that was done. Such a comment makes me suspect that you have not actually read much of the NIST report.
Of course, you thus ignore the fact that the jet fuel ignited just about everything else on those floors. So it is as dramatic as it sounds. Had the planes had near empty tanks, we’d likely be looking at scars on the sides of the Twin Towers, not the holes where they once were.
Don’t professional demolition crews, working openly with free access to the buildings they plan to destroy, buildings that are far smaller than the WTC towers, have more manpower than that? Seems to me the restrictions imposed by doing such a big job, twice, and having to do it furtively, means that if you only had ten guys on the job, it’d take them months (at least) to put everything in place. How far back does this plan go? Could it have been underway during the Clinton administration?
Woah woah woah woah woah! You all sure seemed to enjoy jumping on my case when I mentioned molten steel. I threw several examples including a guy at ground zero saying “Oh man, this is several weeks later! It’s gotta be like 1,500 degrees down there,” and a picture of a red to yellow hot piece of metal being pulled out by a back hoe. About the picture which is very obviously a hot piece of metal, you’re arguement is basically summed up as “You know, I can’t really quite tell what that is… it could be a red, glowing rag!”
Oven effect? It’s always been my understanding that heat dispersed instead of concentrate into one area. Is this some kind of new phenomenon? Of course! :smack: The laws of physics were suspended that day!
You’ve asked so many questions of me, and I’ve only asked one question of you. You all jumped down my throat when I said there was molten steel, and so I dug up some examples. You tried to shoot down my examples with crap like “I can’t really see that, it could be something else…” And so answer my question: Can you find a reputable source that states there was no molten steel?
And yeah Bryan, it probably did go back for months. A high rise like that is always having work on it though. You see a white guy walking around with a brown box wearing a clearance badge, you don’t think twice about it right?
And of course, you thus ignore the fact that jet fuel burns hotter than paper and sofas, and that whole point you guys are trying to make is that the towers collapsed because of the all the heat produced by the jet fuel… 50 minutes later? But why wouldn’t they have collapsed in the 15 minutes the jet fuel was burning? So I guess it was the only high rise super-structure to burn down because of burning paper and carpet and sofas. There was also no sagging of the floors or any other signs indicating that the fire was causing the steel to lose its integrity.
Also the core of the building is an incredibly large heat sink, with plenty of room and steel to transfer any heat that those burning sofas and staplers might radiate in its direction. According to the NIST report (which assumes the worst of every possibility occured just to initiate a collapse in the computer models and then nevermind the entire structure turned to dust on the way down) the building was still pretty much intact as proven by recordings of its oscillations after the impact.
As I understand it, the WTC/Port Authority did have internal security and cameras and whatnot, and their personnel were likely subject to rotations and turnover (so there are always new people coming in who might notice something odd), so for months on end, involving planting explosives on the buildings’ superstructures (rather more complicated than just dropping off a variety of brown boxes), nobody thought anything was strange? Was Port Authority security in on it, too? Were there large numbers of Port Authority security personnel who didn’t show up for work that day? Have they all kept silent to this day? Have they all been eliminated?
It’s true the WTC also had a large engineering and maintenance department, but why would these guys not notice strangers walking through, especially five to ten strangers, doing undefined work for undefined reasons? Why would none of the regular maintenance crew stumble across one or more of the “brown boxes” during their normal routine? Such boxes (at least the ones planted first) would’ve been in place for months, no?
The planted-explosives theory is problematic simply because taking down a building is a complicated procedure even under optimal conditions when the crews can move around freely and openly. Limiting the size of the crew, not being able to use heavy power tools for fear of being discovered, and trying to do the job secretly in buildings with thousands of workers for months on end? I don’t see how this is possible, let alone more plausible than a crashed jet and a long fire.
Some not so straight “stuff” for the Straight Dopers. This guy has been trying to get his story out for years, but as usual only the alternative media will listen. He explains that since 1976, the military was contemplating ways the towers could be brought down in a 9/11-style attack, and he and others were involved in an exercise exploring the possibilities. Yet we are told, “no one could have imagined…” http://www.codenamegrillfire.com/index.php?n=1&id=1
Right…'cause we all know that building fires are mild, tame affairs. I mean, whats to burn in an office building…never heard of such a thing!
Can I assume, since you haven’t attempted to actually address any of the cites provided multiple times (from different sources) discussing the crash, the fire and its probable effect on the building that you haven’t actually bothered to READ any of them? Or is it that you didn’t understand them?
On a related point, do you still not see the difference between the cites provided YOU by various posters in this thread, written by experts in the field and backed up with real science, are somewhat different than the ‘cites’ you have provided US…namely a propaganda film, some photos and blurry video (some that frankly shows gods know what) and a lot of out the ass conjecture backed up by, well, not much except fragments from half understood (well, by some) and out of context reports by NIST, garbled eye witness accounts and seemingly a heavy reliance on news people at the crash scene (NEWS people for gods sake) reporting DURING the crisis? No, you probably don’t get it…
Just a word to the wise…it would be better for you to say something like ‘Oven effect? Whats that? Could you explain what it is and perhaps provide a cite going over it?’. You wouldn’t sound some much like an…er, you wouldn’t sound so ignorant then I should say.
You dug up an ambiguous photo. Do you really not understand that this does not constitute physical evidence? Its not on us to show there was no molten steel…its on YOU to show physical evidence that there was. Physical evidence would include a report on a sample of this molten metal by a credible source.
I would if they were digging out the walls to get the the structural supports and then running wires all over the place…yeah. You saying you wouldn’t be even marginally curious…even if ‘you’ were, oh, say building security? Especially if they were doing this all over the place and on multiple floors.
BTW, are either you or sent going to answer my questions about just how many load bearing members needed to be targetted, how much explosive per member, how many floors were effected…and how they managed to get TOO the actual steel of the support members in order to place your purported thermite charges? You don’t have to answer how there were all these supposed explosions when they were using thermite, or why there were supposedly explosions when the first firefighters arrived…and then MORE explosions later. I think we should focus on one series of improbable things at a time here.
-XT
I just put a pot on my stove to boil spaghetti. I set the element heat to maximum to get the water boiling, but it’ll still take several minutes. Similarly, wouldn’t it take a sustained burn over quite some time to heat up the steel sufficiently to make if soften? Further, the jet fuel wasn’t burning in a nice tidy barbecue pit. At the point if impact, wouldn’t it splatter all over the place, starting a widespread fire on carpets and furniture in the damaged floors, raising the temperature of the already-damaged struts gradually?
How much sagging would you have expected? Five, six, ten degrees? Wouldn’t the complete failure of even one floor cause everything above it to crash down, making the building collapse?
The core of the building may be its spine, but if other bones are shattered, doesn’t that create a problem?
I’m trying to be fair by solely questioning the “how”. I’m leaving out the “why”.
This is why it is so fun and so frustrating to try and discuss this subject logically with a CT.
From the linked site:
OK close enough.
Wait a minute a 4,000 lb car moving at 20 miles per hour will knock a light pole off it foundation without totaling the car, but a 269,434 lb plane moving at 400 mph would get its wings destroyed??
Then we get a picture of a car hitting a WOOD light pole to show what happens when you hit a light pole. close but the poles around the Pentagon were aluminum, not quite the same animal. :smack:
Drives me crazy. :rolleyes:
Are we? The idea of planes crashing into buildings has appeared in pre-2001 fiction quite a few times, and there were real-life incidents involving an Army Air Force bomber smacking into the Empire State Building in 1945 (on a Sunday, fortunately) and a Cessna bumping into the White House in 1994 (on September 12, by the way, though some conspiracy-minded websites put the incident on the 11th, apparently seeking karma points). The concept wasn’t completely bizarre, nor was it especially original in 1976. This particular attack, though, was rather unexpected.
Can you find a reputable source that states there were no ice caves beneath the WTC?
1,500° does not get you to “molten.”
Of course heat dissipates, but objects that are heated to well over 1000° and then buried under several hundred thousand tons of rubble are held at higher temperatures in the manner of a banked fire. It still takes anywhere from three days to a week to cool down a steel mill furnace for relining–and that furnace is in the open air.
Had the steel in the WTC gone molten, it would have puddled into the shapes of the pockets of debris into which it flowed. All the metal recovered from the debris (including the photos to which you have linked) have been recognizable as bars or girders or sheets. None have been examples of the sort of “modern art” that my dad used to bring home after an accident of spilled molten steel from his foundry, with odd shapes formed in puddles.
This exercise was not about other buildings…there were detailed discussions and analysis of how the WTC might be brought down. Whether or not a jet aircraft alone or if explosives might also be required was discussed. This was our own military.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was first outlined by a British naval officer in, I think, 1927. During the 1930s, the US Navy twice performed maneuvers based on that same plan (of a Northern Pacific route under radio blackout and an attack from the Northwest). Still, we failed to adequately prepare for that exact scenario. The military is often busy studying the feasibility of attacks on the U.S.; that is their job. (Unfortunately, it appears that having made the feasibility study, they too often do not follow up with an adequate defense.) Do you also believe that Pearl Harbor was bombed by the carriers Enterprise and Lexington with their planes painted in Japanese markings?
No, but having reviewed both sides of the argument on that issue I think it is likely he knew about it and not only allowed it to happen but took measures to help it happen.
By “he” I suppose you mean FDR? From you, I am not surprised. However, the question was whether the US Navy actually attacked Pearl harbor, which is the more direct comparison to your insinuations regarding a preparedness feasibility study from 1976.
