9/11 derail: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[hdbuck]

What do you guys think of General Wesley Clark's approach to 911?

-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4DgsCqP8U

He seems quite legit, a true american patriot that does not have obvious reason to lie about what he experienced at the highest levels of the State.




+ what about Larry Silverstein, who bought WTC for a nugget barely a year before the attack (whilst engaging in renovating and putting those buildings in adequate standards), but added a special article about "terrorists attacks" in the $5+ Billion insurance policy not even a month before it happened?

So IMHO, the main reason WTC went down was because the costs of dismantlement or removing the asbestos were just huge. And so it was somehow just better to blow it up, accusing some terrorists, strengthening the laws (patriot act?! NSA spying?!) to control the population and spread fear amongst it, make profit, and find excuses to mess with middle east countries. Easy.  

edit: and so imho to find the Who, one must not only focus on the How (suicidal beard-gang members with cutters?!): its more about the Why. And one can then argue that 911 did provide a huge hedge to america's puppetmasters, at least for that last decade..

[1713955447]

1713955447

[pa]

One of the reasons it is so difficult to have a serious, logical discussion regarding the 9/11 attacks is that the US government (and likely other interested parties) have hired shills/trolls to infiltrate and disrupt such discussions. See: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/01/13/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

It's worth reading Cass Sunstein's Orwellian paper on "Cognitive Infiltration": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

[BombaUcigasa]

Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background?

I discount my own testimony as a witness. I would never ask anyone to take my single version as truth as I am human and fallible. Do you believe yourself?

In case you haven't noticed people believe things that they did not partake in so seriously, that they die to prove their sincerity (in honestly believing a lie).

Like skyscraper collision assisted group suicide...

[Its About Sharing]

Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background?

I discount my own testimony as a witness. I would never ask anyone to take my single version as truth as I am human and fallible. Do you believe yourself?

In case you haven't noticed people believe things that they did not partake in so seriously, that they die to prove their sincerity (in honestly believing a lie).

Like skyscraper collision assisted group suicide...

You are avoiding a witness who was in a key location. Other witnesses btw have verified his claims. Your argument is making very little sense. It is like a combination of more logical fallacies than I care to look up.

This is not a matter of believing what anyone says, per say. Rather it is about investigating their claims, and OPENLY. That was not done.
The biggest crime in our history had no investigation until the families forced the administration into doing so and then they put Henry Kissinger in as the head!
Until of course his conflict of interests forced him to resign (or be removed.)

So many people were murdered that day and the investigation was avoided at all costs. We should have an open investigation, still.

pa - It certainly appears so. The amount of money spent on defense, intelligence, etc. really makes one wonder where it is spent. And controlling public opinion is of paramount importance. I just hope those duped into being shills/trolls start to look at the bigger picture. Thanks for the links.

IAS

[niner]

Max Cleland is a former US senator who served on the 9/11 commission:

quote from wikipedia:

he was quoted as saying in November 2003: "I... cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."[20] He called the 9/11 Commission a "national scandal." [21][22]

On the other hand you have structural engineers and architects and like Richard Gage putting their reputations on the line with peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

Richard Gage was interviewed on CSPAN earlier this month. ...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtGhjzI9rw4

[zimmah]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.)

even without the evidence of planes, and the fact that a single planestrike does not make a tower collapse, the main point of evidence is this:

It is a very hard science to make a tall building explode in a controlled demolition in such a way that it does not damage anything near it. (Or at least does minimal collateral damage). The only way to make a building collapse in a controlled way is by many small timed explosions. It takes a team of highly specialized engineers weeks if not months of preparation to get it right.

Apparently two planes managed to do it just like that. Quite odd, isn't it?

If you don't buy my story about controlled demolition, why don't you check out videos on youtube and see how often it goes wrong? Note that those jobs are always done only by experts, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The odds of having a plane strike cause a perfect collapse (or any kind of collapse at all) is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

note especially the second building, this is what happens VERY OFTEN, and this is what you would expect to happen when only the top part of the building is severely damaged, the top will just slide off, and do no damage to the bottom. Especially if the top part is not nearly as heavy as the bottom part (which is always the case, because the bottom has much more support, and is therefore heavier, not to mention the top part only a few stories, it did not have nearly enough mass to destroy the complete tower beneath it). Trust me i'm an engineer. The top part would need to be at least 40 times heavier to be able to crush the bottom part like it did, unless all the support was blown away at precisely timed intervals with small explosions starting at the bottom of the tower.

[zimmah]

It only took a simple Google search to find this in the first few results:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Since when does a skyscraper collapse from fire?

A hot enough fire weakens metal.  Jet fuel, diesel or heating oil burn very hot.  If there is enough fuel to burn for an extended period of time things happen.  

What caused the twin towers to collapse?  It wasn't the direct hit from the airplanes or the weight of the airplanes on the structure.  Without the extended fire from the jet fuel the buildings wouldn't have collapsed.

If you have an extended hot fire at the base of a building it will also cause a structural failure and then there is nothing to hold the building up.

The buildings that collapsed experienced very unique and unusual circumstances.  

First of all, the heat would mostly go upwards

Secondly, the fuel would not last for hours, as the wings (which act as fuel containers) can be assumed to be ripped apart, so the fuel is mixed with the air everywhere and therefore would combust within several seconds, minutes at most.

At most, the temperature due to the jet fuel fire would increase by about 200 degrees celsius, which is not even nearly enough to melt or even weaken steel.

Also, most of the heat would be absorbed by the air in the first place anyway.

by the way, this tower did not collapse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

note that fireworks in fact do heat up the building much more than jet fuel (at least in those quantities) for the simple fact that the fire is sustained for a much longer period of time. Therefore the air will become much hotter and thus the structure of the building gets more time to absorb the heat, instead of the heat just blowing away with the wind.

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

all nice numbers, but they're meaningless,

to know how much the steel really heats up, you don't need to know how hot kerosine burns, you need to know how much energy (heat) is added to the structure of the building.

You have to consider the amount of fuel burnt, the efficiency of the burning process (there's 3 possible chemical burn processes of jet fuel depending on how well the fuel was mixed with oxygen), the total mass of all the objects that were heated up including the air (which will absorb most of the heat, by the way), the specific heat of all the object heated, and from that calculate the deviation in heat, in other words how much things heat up from the temperature they started out at.

Since the building is quite large, and the fire was at the top of the building, it's not possible for all the steel in the building to have absorbed nearly enough heat to weaken by a large enough margin to allow structural failure.

on top of that, i would assume a building like that to have a large amount of redundancy in support so that even if the steel was somehow weakened to even 20% of their normal support it would still be able to stand without a problem. A certain level of redundancy is even required in all buildings as a safety measure.

[cedivad]

It's worth reading Cass Sunstein's Orwellian paper on "Cognitive Infiltration": http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

Reading it is Orwellian all the way down.

[Its About Sharing]

Ebola is spread only through the exchange of bodily fluids.  Therefore it doesn't spread as easily as the flu which you can catch through airborne water droplets when somebody coughs.  Getting rid of paper currency doesn't do anything.  Remember not to touch your eyes as this is the only part of your body that exposes the inside of your body and therefore is the primary gateway for all types of nasties.

Truth does not matter. The U.S. demolished WTC 1, 2 and 7, blaming it on ragheads that supposedly flew 2 planes towards WTC 1 and 2. (Note that the number of buildings demolished exceeds the number of planes by 1.) As a consequence, billions of security searches are now conducted throughout the world annually, with the main goal of conditioning people to accept ridiculous and unfounded orders as a part of their job, and ridiculous and unfounded procedures as a condition of exercising a very basic human right - to travel around the world. (And this was just an example, the real atrocities are found in other parts of Patriot Act, nicely prepared before the event.)

even without the evidence of planes, and the fact that a single planestrike does not make a tower collapse, the main point of evidence is this:

It is a very hard science to make a tall building explode in a controlled demolition in such a way that it does not damage anything near it. (Or at least does minimal collateral damage). The only way to make a building collapse in a controlled way is by many small timed explosions. It takes a team of highly specialized engineers weeks if not months of preparation to get it right.

Apparently two planes managed to do it just like that. Quite odd, isn't it?

If you don't buy my story about controlled demolition, why don't you check out videos on youtube and see how often it goes wrong? Note that those jobs are always done only by experts, and even they get it wrong sometimes. The odds of having a plane strike cause a perfect collapse (or any kind of collapse at all) is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

note especially the second building, this is what happens VERY OFTEN, and this is what you would expect to happen when only the top part of the building is severely damaged, the top will just slide off, and do no damage to the bottom. Especially if the top part is not nearly as heavy as the bottom part (which is always the case, because the bottom has much more support, and is therefore heavier, not to mention the top part only a few stories, it did not have nearly enough mass to destroy the complete tower beneath it). Trust me i'm an engineer. The top part would need to be at least 40 times heavier to be able to crush the bottom part like it did, unless all the support was blown away at precisely timed intervals with small explosions starting at the bottom of the tower.

Regarding the bolded point, did you notice how the top part of the S. Tower falling over and then suddenly the building starts to fall straight down? This made no sense to me, as clearly the least resistance would be to continue falling over and not go straight down. Looks like I wasn't the only one to notice that.
 
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/tilting-south-tower-gives-away-demolition-of-trade-center-towers/
snippet:

When the South Tower started to collapse at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.

The only way we didn’t have the top 34-floor section lying in a heap beside the tower is that it fell apart – or more likely blew apart – at the beginning of the collapse. The reason we’ve let this fact slip by most of us is that the top of the building is quickly disappears amid all the smoke and debris. We never see it again.

But here’s the most important point: Newton wouldn’t be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical collapse that followed. With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below? In fact, how could it exert any force at all? And how could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the collapse wasn’t symmetrical when it started.

Further: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse.htm
snippet

- therefore the energy from the structure above would – in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the structure, below. In theory, the “cap” should have torn loose and independently fallen. However, if there had been an independent - and nearly simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue - vertically. The “cap” tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did not fall off; it collapsed – "in formation” - with the rest of the structure. The simultaneous "fall" of the two sections tells a story, by itself. The 'center of gravity' of the "cap" abruptly found a vertical path to the ground! The most probable reality being that the core collapsed, inducing the tilt of the "cap."

If the "cap" had tilted first, the mechanical tilt of the “cap” should have relieved a major portion of the purely vertical stress from above; alleviating any tendency for the immediate lower structure to “pancake;” as was witnessed. It is not difficult to imagine the floors collapsing over a period of time - but NOT simultaneously!

[BombaUcigasa]

all nice numbers, but they're meaningless,

Meaningless yes, but at lest correct. It's important when you debate to not blatantly lie. It shows you have a deluded agenda or you are an ignorant idiot.

One thing that I did not look into is radiative heat. Having one surface burn at 500C is not the same as having a volume burn at 500C. The heat is transferred by several processes, one of which is IR radiation. Several floors are burning for about an hour and any trapped heat will cause either violent air ventilation due to convection of heated air, or hot-spots that have temperatures above individual fires.

[BombaUcigasa]

And, according to Sir Isaac Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, it should have kept tipping over. There was nothing that could have stopped the momentum of this rotation. Except explosives.

Explosives!

[dnaleor]

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

Seriously, people need to wake up.

false flags, false falgs everywhere...

Would be nice to have a Rpietila "The truth behind 911" thread though. 

Just for the fun, rename this thread to "Reptilian The truth behind 911 thread" 

[hdbuck]

What do you guys think of General Wesley Clark's approach to 911?

-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE4DgsCqP8U

He seems quite legit, a true american patriot that does not have obvious reason to lie about what he experienced at the highest levels of the State.




+ what about Larry Silverstein, who bought WTC for a nugget barely a year before the attack (whilst engaging in renovating and putting those buildings in adequate standards), but added a special article about "terrorists attacks" in the $5+ Billion insurance policy not even a month before it happened?

So IMHO, the main reason WTC went down was because the costs of dismantlement or removing the asbestos were just huge. And so it was somehow just better to blow it up, accusing some terrorists, strengthening the laws (patriot act?! NSA spying?!) to control the population and spread fear amongst it, make profit, and find excuses to mess with middle east countries. Easy.  

edit: and so imho to find the Who, one must not only focus on the How (suicidal beard-gang members with cutters?!): its more about the Why. And one can then argue that 911 did provide a huge hedge to america's puppetmasters, at least for that last decade..

nobody reacted on my theory

[cedivad]

nobody reacted on my theory

It's really interesting.

[AlexGR]

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

If you know any pilots, ask them what's the chance that an amateur pilot (hijacker), would crash the plane HORIZONTALLY on the pentagon, like he was landing or something... This is a very difficult maneuver to perform, especially in a city environment with poles, trees etc (unlike an airport which has much horizontal clearance in most directions).

If you go too slow, you'll stall the plane and crash. If you go too fast, you can't maneuver it as you like through the terrain (which is still mighty difficult in itself with a huge passenger plane, unlike a fighter jet).

Normally an amateur hijacker would fly higher than the pentagon, spot it, then dive into the pentagon with an angle and crash the plane in this manner.

[Its About Sharing]

I was very sceptical when some friend told me about the 911 conspiracy, until I heard about WTC 7. The building is just the smoking gun in this story. Also, I am not convinced a plane crashed in the pentagon. There are probably tons of security camera's and I never saw ONE convincing video. Show me one of a plane crashing in the pentagon. You will not find any!

If you know any pilots, ask them what's the chance that an amateur pilot (hijacker), would crash the plane HORIZONTALLY on the pentagon, like he was landing or something... This is a very difficult maneuver to perform, especially in a city environment with poles, trees etc (unlike an airport which has much horizontal clearance in most directions).

If you go too slow, you'll stall the plane and crash. If you go too fast, you can't maneuver it as you like through the terrain (which is still mighty difficult in itself with a huge passenger plane, unlike a fighter jet).

Normally an amateur hijacker would fly higher than the pentagon, spot it, then dive into the pentagon with an angle and crash the plane in this manner.

And on top of that, the maneuver that pilot did was pretty impossible. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' Pilot Questions 9/11

by Alan Miller Page 1 of 1 page(s)

September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy Top Gun pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad, started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. It just didnt make any sense to me, he said. And now 6 years after 9/11 he says, When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.

Now retired, Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navys Top Gun air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie, Top Gun reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a Top Gun adversary instructor. While in the Navy, he flew F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and F-14 Tomcats and completed 250 aircraft carrier landings.

Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.

Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

Commander Kolstad adds, I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!

He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?

[AlexGR]

And on top of that, the maneuver that pilot did was pretty impossible. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070905_u_s__navy__top_gun__.htm

Friend of mine, who has flown Mirage 2000 and F-16s in the Hellenic Air Force, was laughing at the supposed "stunt" of the passenger plane. He said the hit is way more consistent with a cruise missile or, if it was a plane, perhaps a remote controlled one.

Another friend, who is now co-pilot in an Airbus, also questions how is that even possible... he is not sure he could have done it himself so "cleanly" because there are turbulences, obstacles and stuff which would render the feat almost impossible (meaning using the jet to break through the side of the building the way it was done). He believes that so low clearance would have been extremely risky for colliding with terrain objects that would jeopardize the objective (hitting the pentagon) and that there is simply no reason why one would do it that way - plus the impact momentum and blast would be better if one crashed it while diving at an angle.