And, just as with the last article on that topic, I pose the question: How does this man's education permit him to give lectures on Islam? Is that the academic standard the US now adheres to?

Posted by: WiredDragoon at July 6, 2006 7:52 AM

Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University gives a conspiracy theory, although others with credentials say that his evidence is insufficient as a basis for his conclusions. It is not crazy, I think, to wonder (one is allowed to wonder) how the towers could fall down in the way they did, as if (per Jones) from internal charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Posted by: StillBreathing at July 6, 2006 7:52 AM

Arrest him and put him in the loony bin on the grounds of "beyond belief incurable insanity"!!

My spouse is a structural engineer. We were in the US on 9/11 with another structural and mechanical engeineer.They went over all the details together. The planes could easily do it. The metal core melted.

Some buildings have a concrete core so the damage would have been a lot less.

bin laden comes from an engineering family and he knew it was possible. He admitted to it. What more do you need?

Otherwise put him in the slammer for sedition.

Posted by: Gramfan at July 6, 2006 8:26 AM

Please, not the "how-did-they-collapse-straight-down" nonsense.

Anyone with a high school knowledge of physics should know that an object with such tremendous mass as a skyscraper as tremendous lateral inertia. That means that it does not want to go anywhere but down if its support is cut. If there is no force being applied to the side, it will not topple sideways. Why should it? It will go down. To overcome that laterial inertia, you have apply force from the side greater than the force of gravity that is pulling it down. If it did topple sideways, then you know something is fishy. That would indicate that the base of the tower was compromised. Even then, a huge tower would still fall mostly down and not sideways.

Building number 2, that was hit more on one side than the other, did fail on that side first. So the top part of that building did indeed slide to one side before falling. take a look But once it pancaked down on the floors below, then the remaining building pancaked straight down as usual.

This conspiracy theory is the most irritating because it stems from people watching those demolitions on TV programs thinking that only demolished buildings fall like that. All buildings fall like that if they start to collapse. Gravity dictates that.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 6, 2006 8:44 AM

This Web site is the best.

Posted by: StillBreathing at July 6, 2006 10:27 AM

So the conclusion of all of these cranks is that:

Osama Bin Laden took credit for the WTC attack in order to throw suspicion away from the Evil Crusader George Bush, and to thereby allow his Cunning American Plan to Wage War Against Islam and Destroy it to proceed unquestioned?

Brilliant. Osama works for Bush, in effect.

But why are Muslims then dying for the machinations of this Dystopian Duo?

The conspiratorialists' logic makes about as much sense as comic artist Gary Larson's* cartoon theory that dinosaur bones are actually the 'chicken dinner' refuse left by giant aliens picnicking on Earth in prehistory.

Idiocy is what happens when paranoid desire supplants unpleasant reality.

__________________________________________________

* Larson was also a cartoonist who drew a mocking picture of Mohammad long before these kinds of images were noticed by rampaging Muslims (see "The Far Side Gallery 5", page 91.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 6, 2006 12:02 PM

Ah, yes. This is a peer-reviewed, honorable member of the professoriate. I hope there are at least a few alums and donors who are awake.

Posted by: Kepha at July 6, 2006 12:07 PM

The frightening thing is that even when provided with the evidence these nutters continue to deny the obvious. It wasn't the CIA or Mossad it was AlQaeda get it.

World Trade Center 1993, Khobar Towers, 2 East African embassies, USS Cole, 9/11, Bali, Beslan, Madrid, London 7/7, Bagdhad and Israel, they are all down to the "religion of peace".

It is not long since we were being told that the 4 Muslim London bombers were merely innocent passengers, clean skins, nice lads, not extreme until the first hate filled video appeared.
Even when today one day before the anniversary of 7/7 a second video is released by Al Jazeera, leftist moonbats are still making excuses for them.

Posted by: Maimonides at July 6, 2006 12:12 PM

Unfortunately I have the misfortune of living with someone who is obsessed with this theory literally day in and day out. And I know another person who feels the same way. If anyone would be so kind as to list the flaws of this conspiracy theory so I can keep these in mind when I hear their ramblings. I would appreciate it a whole bunch.

Posted by: DillPickle at July 6, 2006 2:05 PM

It certainly seems appropriate that the Big Lie should be discussed in an "Introduction to Islam" course.

"Big Lie, meet Islam. Islam, meet Big Lie. Oh...I see you two already know each other."

Too bad this professor can't see the real lie for all the Muslim mendacity.

Posted by: Cato the Elder at July 6, 2006 2:29 PM

I wish some of these over educated morons would
ACTUALLY look at REAL DATA...

Here is just one...

It does show that JP4 when properly atomized and the vapors ignighted can reach temperatures of 2400 degrees on the flame front...

Now you can argue that this was not sustainable (which i would also agree) but to state that there is no way that the towers could have collapsed due to their estimates of 800 degrees max mean temperature is simply not true..

After the initial impact right when the wings on the aircraft were sliced open they sheer force of the impact SPRAYED JP4 into the building which was immidiatly ignited..

The initial flame front and explosion was at least 2000 degrees (close enough) to seriously comprimise the steel center and Rib Joint components..

The following fire (which was around 800) degrees set fire to everything inside...

What does this mean...

Simple ...

The initial blast had a mean average temperature of around 2200 degrees from the atomized fuel..

The blast blew away all of the protective insulation on the steel members.

The blast loosened a vast number of rivets holting the core to the facade cross members..

Now that the members were both loose , hot then the fire which had been started on over 4 floors further weakened (not the initial steel) but the smaller and more vulerable cross members.

Since these were also load bearing more pressure from the top 25 floors was being put on the facade facing joints...

These bulged and buckled after approx what 2 hours of constant fire of both

JP 4
Wood
Laminates
Plastic (which accounts for a lot of the black smoke) not oxygen starvation like this moron claims.
The molten metal was not from the Steel beams themselves but ALL of the Office Equipment made our of Steel (like)
Chairs, cabinets, computers, doors (which were made of lower density) steel as well as aluminum, and other metals used in todays modern construction...

Not everything is made of steel folks...

The end analysis is very simple

1. The initial impact blew away the protective insulation
2. The initial explosion had a mean temperature of 2200 + degrees
3. the 33,0000 kg of jp4 soaked the floors down for at least 2 floors with rivers of jp4 on fire ignighting everyting in its path
4. the fire now 2 floors down and 3 floors up forced the temperature of the joints and rivets loosened by the initial blast to soften .
5. it is true that the steel did not melt but was weakened by 25%
6. the building was designed to withstand an aircraft the size of a 707 hitting it on approach at 250 mph...
7. the building was hit by a much larger aircraft at around 450 mph.. further damaging the supports..

Doesnt anyone ever read anymore..

The Government did not lie ...
They didnt explain it in the 9/11 commission report in enough detail..

This is my analysis backed up by something called FACTS...

I would love to do a much more in depth anaylysis when time permits

Posted by: jingoist at July 6, 2006 3:42 PM

DillPickle asks: "If anyone would be so kind as to list the flaws of this conspiracy theory so I can keep these in mind when I hear their ramblings. I would appreciate it a whole bunch."

The March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine had a special report on "Debunking the 9-11 Myths." It covered all the most popular conspiracy theories:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

It's written in simple language, not extremely technical--and thoroughly debunks the conspiracy theories. After reading this article, any sane person should ditch all the conspiracy theories once and for all.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 6, 2006 4:51 PM

Jingoist,

Don't forget the aircraft itself fueled a lot of the intense heat. The aircraft skin is all aluminum, as is most of the interior. Aluminum will melt at a much lower temp than steel (440F-1215F) At higher temps AL will burn or even vaporize. Keep in mind that, molten AL has an explosive reaction when it comes in contact with water. So if water from ruptured sprinkler system pipes came in contact with melted aluminum....
And any number of things could have been in the cargo compartment that could increase the intensity of the explosion and/or fire.
The aircraft liquid oxygen supply would add a significant boost to any explosion and increase the intensity of any fire.
Also the carpets in the aircraft and in the WTC, along with the hydraulic fluid in the aircraft hydraulic systems and rubber aircraft tires would have contributed a great deal to the black smoke.

Posted by: WhiteDemon}:) at July 6, 2006 5:25 PM

Yes i agree totally...

My point was to debunk this so called theorist on his main point which was

A. there was no way jp4 could get that hot (his analysis was wrong) it could for the initial blast.

B. the molten steel (according to him) proved it was thermite or plastic explosives or monkeys with matches burning not a more logical and consistant theory whicch is based upon FACTS..

(again his whole theory is based upon) the misconception that ONLY jp4 was burning ...

This is FLAT out WRONG!!!!!!!

The molten steel was there in the wreckage (as the entire area was over 2000) degrees for days after the Islamic TERRORIST ACT...

I absolutly refuse to be bullied by a LEFTIST MORON who cant ADD or backup their cocamamy theories with anything more than DOG CRAP...

IDIOTS...

What really makes me mad is THIS IDIOT is probably being PAID 100 TIMES what i make (which isnt much) and he is being PAID BY

ANTI AMERICAN
ANTI GOD
ANTI FAMILY
ANTI CHRISTIAN
ANTI MILITARY

Leftist , communist, Treasonist, liberals who WANT AMERICA DEFEATED..

BULL CRAP!!!!
SHOVE IT UP your enlightened ASS
and I CAN BACKUP up EVERYTHING with
Something LIBERALS HATE...

FACTS!!!

Posted by: jingoist at July 6, 2006 6:32 PM

Barett is an idiot for the following reason: The US economy is a market economy. Under this economic paradigm the bigger the market (population), the bigger the economy and perceived economic gains. And the reverse is true as well: shrink the population and the economy will shrink taking economic gains with it. The US government has spent billions promoting this economic model and has numerous officials engaged in promoting it all over the world.

The US, under this economic paradigm, would have NOTHING to gain by staging 9-11 (killing off thousands of the all-important market)and MUCH TO LOSE (ie, a decline in corporate revenues). So the motive for staging 9-11 is thus out the window. So, we may conclude therefore, that even the US goverment would know better than to try something like this. Even if Barrett is unable to comprehend the reasons for that.

Posted by: pythagoras at July 6, 2006 8:24 PM

DillPickle-

PBS has a NOVA documentary on "WHY THE TOWERS FELL" that covers the construction and destruction of the Twin Towers.

Check it out here.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 6, 2006 8:24 PM

Something else that no one seems to mention..

Please understand i love and thank our Military, Government and CIA/NSA/FBI employees...

But...

Our CIA couldnt mine the harbors in nicaragua without being caught and hauled before congress..

Our FBI couldnt find the DC sniper for 10 days (until a trucker noticed) the car they were driving in... and called them...

Our NSA still to this day is unable with billions of dollars in the most advanced equipment to find Bin laden even if they covered all of pakistan and afghanistan with infrared 24 x 7..

Our Secrets (told to leftist democrats) end up front page on the New York times ...

Our Plans end up leaked almost weekly due to either fraud, treason or just plain mistakes...

To even suggest that our own government (who is so incompetent they botched the wako investigation) and that was 40 nuts in a farm house... on a trumped up charge..

Could pull off something this huge..
And not only get away with it but manage to keep it secret....

Give me A BREAK FOLKS....

I love our men and women in service and i know they are doing the best they can but the simple fact is...
Our Government cant keep anything secret for more than a few months before it is splashed all over the worlds newspapers...

This is why most other governments are wary of working with the USA anyway (not that they dont want to help)... but they know we cant keep anything secret...

If our current government and news media were doing what they are now (during WW II) not only would hitler have known about the invasion...
He would be able to watch the loading live thanks to cnn .....

Does anyone in their RIGHT mind actually believe that our government could keep something this huge.. from being discovered...?

I DONT think SO...

Posted by: jingoist at July 6, 2006 8:38 PM

Steven, thanks so much for displaying the Popular Mechanics link. I'm not proficient in any shape or form with actual mechanics but this is the first time I've ever seen a link that talks about concrete refutations of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Unfortunately I'm not too involved in politics as I should probably be, but I emailed the article to myself and am committed to reading this.

Posted by: DillPickle at July 6, 2006 8:46 PM

Just for comic relief, I want to tell you that my sister rents out a room to this loser who not only believes that 9/11 was carried out by Bush and Co., but that the contrails that planes leave in the skies are really chemical sprays dispersed to poison us.

But it gets better. He also believes that the earth is hollow and that there is a little sun in the middle to provide heat and light for those that live there.

This guy is a conspiracy nutcase, but rather being from the left, he is one of those survivalists from the so-called right. These people are too stupid to be right wing. They are just anti-government wackos. While I'm blogging about islam, he is blogging about the conspiracy of the hollow earth.

Anyway, I'm visiting my sister, he comes into the room loaded up on beer, and starts talking about his conspiracy crap, I politely try to tell him why buildings fall the way they do, he is not interested in hearing me. He argues, I try to reason with him, he argues back. At this point, I'm not interested, but he won't shut up, he gets frustrated that I don't buy his 9/11 theories, consequentely accusing me of having a small mind, at which point I lose it, and threaten to kick his ass. At which point he goes outside to smoke a joint.

Just a typical day at my sister's.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 6, 2006 9:54 PM

Jingoist,

I agree with your analysis, that "Bonehead" Barrett's theory is based on the misconception that ONLY JP4 was burning, and was providing further evidence that it was not only JP4 burning.

If Barrett's theory were correct, and the US government was behind 911, I also fail to see how such an enormous secret could possibly be kept, as you say, by any of our government agencies.
They are all thoroughtly infiltrated with Carter and Clinton era liberals who are graduates of our anti-American, anti-military, anti-Christian, multiculturalist universities run by wackos and traitors like Barrett and these liberals would publicize such a secret in a heartbeat. They would bring down this entire country without a second thought if they could bring down Bush as well.

Posted by: WhiteDemon}:) at July 6, 2006 11:51 PM

Sigh,
I know many people who believe this conspiracy stuff about September 11th from both the right and the left. I was at a party during the winter and to my horror realized that pretty much everyone in my immediate vicinity to some extent believed that George Bush staged Sept. 11th. This in my estimation is a fairly common belief that is spreading. It find it imminanetly ominous that this kind of tripe has such a hold in our culture. If the political rhetoric in the USA is going to degenerate to conspiracy mongering, our democratic republic is over. This kind of degenerate garbage is what drives politics in such vile lands as genocide era Rwanda and much of Dar al Islam. This is ominious and a dark portend for the future. I would almost advocate mass revocation of the voting rights of any individual or demographic category taken in by this vile garbage. The filthy mob and their mischief must be confronted. Dark days indeed.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at July 7, 2006 1:12 AM

The best site to check out mountains of information re 911 - contra the official story - I think is : http://911research.wtc7.net/

This site has critiques of all major articles against 'insider views', including the Popular Mechanics' article referred to above.

Anyone who wants to rant on in favour of the official view needs to look at this site and then answer the information contained there – but please not with flippant, smart-alexy, throw away lines.

Check out my comments at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012073.php

For anyone to say it was easy for these building to collapse is talking baloney. They were incredibly strong with a steel core comprised of 47 massive vertical box columns. Photos taken during construction show these clearly.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 3:00 AM

This professor clearly shows that a person can be very educated but still a total idiot.

1-The simple laws of physics clearly shows how the towers fell.

2-The towers weren't the only things attacked. The pentagon was attacked as well as another plane hijacked.

3-The hijackers were known by name and were Muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia.

4-If Bush wanted an excuse to invade somewhere etc, as the conspiracy theorists claim, he wouldn't have to fake hijackings, which would cause damage to the economy and cost the US billions. Hypothetically, he could simply present phony information of planned attacks against the US and use that as a basis to go to war, invade etc.

This is just common sense, too bad the highly educated professor and some of these other idiots lack the ability to see this.

Posted by: corli at July 7, 2006 7:06 AM

somethingaboutislam

What you wrote above is baloney.

There is simply no way those building would collapse straight down the line of most resistance. Wand waving is not good enough. Even if the plane did take out the 47 core columns at the level it went in, there is no reason for the columns below or above to collapse.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted around a fulcrum by about 30 degrees, but then the fulcrum went and as the 30 floors descended they totally disintegrated.

And all the concrete was pulverised. I've just watched a video of one of the workers at ground zero saying, there were no tables or chairs or computers or telephones or anything in the rubble. All he saw in that regard was a small piece of phone keyboard. Everything was shreded - and that includes bodies. There were no remains found of 1000 or so people. How come?

Look at the photos, the videos, the testimonies, the evidence. See the squibs popping out the sides of the buildings - clear as a bell, a whole string of them up a top corner of WTC7 right at the start of its collapse - and no plane went into it!

I know this is not comfortable stuff, particularly for patriotic Americans, but it is all there to see and it won't go away. And to raise these issues does not mean you by definition hate America or love its enemies.

More and more people are looking at the evidence and facing it square on.

Clearly, given 'Stillbbreathings' comments at the top, there is so much intimation against holding other views that the question had to be asked whether one is even allowed to 'wonder' about it all!

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 7:09 AM

corli said:

This professor clearly shows that a person can be very educated but still a total idiot.

1-The simple laws of physics clearly shows how the towers fell.

CONTRA, THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE OR COHERENT EXPLANATION OF HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL

2-The towers weren't the only things attacked. The pentagon was attacked as well as another plane hijacked.

IRRELEVANT TO HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL

3-The hijackers were known by name and were Muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia.

IRRELEVANT TO HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL

4-If Bush wanted an excuse to invade somewhere etc, as the conspiracy theorists claim, he wouldn't have to fake hijackings, which would cause damage to the economy and cost the US billions. Hypothetically, he could simply present phony information of planned attacks against the US and use that as a basis to go to war, invade etc.

IRRELEVANT TO HOW THE BUILDINGS FELL

This is just common sense, too bad the highly educated professor and some of these other idiots lack the ability to see this.

TOO BAD NO CASE HAS BEEN PUT

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 7:17 AM

Sonshine, you are a conspiracist troll. And a moron of huge proportions.

Steel columns only support weight that is static. They can not resist dynamic loads of the same weight. Once that 30 story chuck of building, weighing millions and millions of pounds, accelerated downward when the outer supports snapped, all that weight became kinetic energy.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion. No steel column can stop that kind of energy. The columns are not designed for stopping. They are designed only for holding. Once that block of building began to move, the equation of F = M x A comes into play. Those columes below that chunk of building are only for supporting mass, not mass multiplied by acceleration. And because you have no understanding of physics, let me tell you that the amount of kinetic energy is to the square of the speed so even a low speed exponentially magnifies the energies involved.

So you have two choices. Either take the time to understand physics before jumping on conspiracy bandwagons, OR take your bullshit, anti-government conspiracies to another website where people WANT to believe that kind of insult.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 7, 2006 8:19 AM

somethingaboutislam

Your insults are the sort of intimidation that makes any person who 'wonders' about 911 hesistant about making their 'wondering' public.

If you've got it so worked out, and it is all so elementary, why don't you take it to people who really matter and tell them how easy it is. There is no official explanation of how the towers fell but apparently you know how it happened so why haven't they called you up to advise them?

I'm sorry but you don't convince me and I doubt that your attitude is an asset in the war against Islam. Cooler, more rational heads are required.

Anyway...for your sake...I think you should look at great length at http://911research.wtc7.net/ because then you will know in detail what you have to counter. If you view proponents of 'bullshit, anti-government conspiracies' as your enemy - as you clearly do, you should learn accurately what they are saying because good fighting advice is to 'know your enemy'. If you don't you'll be caught out unprepared.

Forget about any politics you may find. Just look at the data relating to the collapses. There are heaps of photos, and videos, and analysis, and critique.

And...I have as much right to be on this site as anyone, or do you think it only for the one eyed and bigoted? I glad Robert and Hugh don't act like you. Nor some of the other posters. Otherwise I would be out of here. Your attitude is not an asset on the site either.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 5:08 PM

Sonshine--My comments were not only about "how the towers fell." There is an official explanation as well as a scientific explanation by engineers. The force of the plane caused the explosion of fire which melted the metal foundation holding the building up and they fell. Very simple. Off the subject of the towers falling for those who claim Bush brought down the towers, other things were hit ie. Pentagon, etc. The hijackers were known Saudi Arabian(mostly) radical Muslims, not "Bush agents". However, if you choose to believe some wacko conspiracy theory, that is your choice. It doens't change the hard cold facts. Denial is such a sad thing.

Posted by: corli at July 7, 2006 6:50 PM

If you've got it so worked out, and it is all so elementary, why don't you take it to people who really matter and tell them how easy it is. There is no official explanation of how the towers fell but apparently you know how it happened so why haven't they called you up to advise them?

Dumbass, why the towers fell is no mystery to anyone. The "people who really matter", and I'm not sure who that would be in your conspiracy-laden mind, knew within days the mechanism of the collapse. If that explanation is not good enough for you, then you probably also believe that the world is flat, the moon landings never happened, airplane contrails are chemical sprays, and NASA is hiding UFOs.

I'm sorry but you don't convince me

If you can't see reason, that at least understand physics. If you can't see reason NOR understand basic physics, then your delusions are motivated, not by simple ignorance, but by ideology. And I got no time for ideologues who spout insulting seditious nonsense on this site. If it was simply ignorance leading you to propose such lunacy, then my simple explanation should let you understand. So don't come here and pretend that you are innocently proposing a theory based on some "data". You are the worst of people. Someone, probably a muslim troll, trying to blame 9/11 on America. At least the wacky left blames it on America, but attributes the attack to terrorists. Seditious clowns like you actually go further than the wacky left. You blame 9/11 on America and attribute the attack to remote control and detonation devices totally removing the terrorists and islam altogether.

you should learn accurately what they are saying because good fighting advice is to 'know your enemy'. If you don't you'll be caught out unprepared.

I know all about people like you. I know all about the survivalist conspiracy idiots and their childlike logic. My sister rents a room to one. See my earlier post.

And...I have as much right to be on this site as anyone, or do you think it only for the one eyed and bigoted? I glad Robert and Hugh don't act like you. Nor some of the other posters. Otherwise I would be out of here. Your attitude is not an asset on the site either

I got news for you, no one has a right to be on this site. This is a site for anti-islam discussion. YOUR contribution is pro-islamic, troll nonsense, like we see all the time. You have the nerve to tell the forum that no islamic hijackers existed on that day. The US government carried out the attack on its own people, in conjunction with Israel, and blamed it on islam.

See how far you get with that line, here.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 7, 2006 7:44 PM

Very simple? Simplistic and naive rather.

Yes, there is an 'official' explanation. Check it out and see how tight it is.

A scientific explanation? Where abouts is the scientific explanation? Where is the evidence jet fuel can melt metal in open fires? For the South Tower most of the fuel burnt outside the building so even if it could melt metal, it wasn't where the metal was to melt it. You'd better check that out.

The planes did not go in at the foundations, and the buildings did not fall collapsing at the foundations. Metal beams were ejected explosively from the top throughout the collapse, and the intact top floors above the impact zone shreaded as they descended.

If you're not willing to look serious 911 sceptics data in the face, and rather prefer to hold to simplistic hand-waving that's your choice also.

Of course if 911 sceptics are right, or even only partly right, then implications flow out from that which bother me as much as anyone. As far as the Towers and WTC7 go, they look right to me, even if they do not have every t crossed and every i dotted.

On another tack, would it have made any difference to you if Clinton had been implicated?

This increasingly looks to me like the creation/evolution debate with evolution being held to as the 'official story', and the opposition being ridiculed and patronisingly rejected with the use of cliches, nor listened to with any seriousness.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 8:08 PM

somethingaboutislam

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder - and have made a lot of extremely rash statements. You really should be more cautious about what you attribute to other people and the names you call them. You're not a good advert for the site.

As I understand this site - maybe I've misunderstood it - is about truth about Islam as much as being opposed to Islam. That at least is what I get from the careful writings of Robert. I didn't think it was anti-Islam to the point of cheap point scoring or lying against Islam and Muslims, or foolish name calling.

I have repeatedly said I am against Islam as much as anyone on this site - maybe you didn't hear that or believe I'm lying. But first and foremost I am for truth. Lies, or deception, or name calling, or reciprocal brutality as has been advocated by some here, never ever advance the cause of truth. Firmness yes. Unshakable resolve yes. Penetrating insight yes. But stooping to the level of those we oppose, never.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 8:22 PM

Where is the evidence jet fuel can melt metal in open fires? For the South Tower most of the fuel burnt outside the building so even if it could melt metal, it wasn't where the metal was to melt it. You'd better check that out.

Steel girder were NOT melted. Where did you get that idea? Low grade steel for furniture, file cabinets, desks, that does melt.

The planes did not go in at the foundations, and the buildings did not fall collapsing at the foundations. Metal beams were ejected explosively from the top throughout the collapse, and the intact top floors above the impact zone shreaded as they descended.

And? This means what? This is exactly what happens when a building structure is compressed violently.

This is your evidence of a conspiracy? You are a joke.

Would it matter if it was Clinton? Why would it?

I see that you are also a believer in creation. So you are one of those survivalist, anti-government, anti-semetic, fundamentalist nutcases who prefers religious beliefs to trump science. I was right. You people are a dime a dozen. The only difference between you and the islamic jihadists is the color of your skin. Your thinking and your ideology overlap totally. No wonder you have latched on to this 9/11 conspiracy. Trouble is, you have jumped in bed with Islamic terrorism, the enemy of your country, to further your ideological bent. You are a traitor to your country.

You understand my explanation totally. You know basic physics. But that is not what this is all about. So don't pretend. This is all about your politics. Pro-islam politics. Take it elsewhere. You're busted.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 7, 2006 8:33 PM

I am not trying to explain all of the possilities jsut to examine if it was possible for the
Initial Blast
Temperature of the intitial wave front to seriously compromise the structural supports..

Secondary fire of jp4 to undermine the supports

Other items on fire to increase the mean temperature to somthing that could cause the main supports to loose up to 25% of their tensile strength...

And finally could both or a combination of

1. the intial blast have loosened the suporting cross members and blown away all of the protective insulation
Answer: Yes at 450 MPH a 2/3 loaded 747 could easily comprimise the building core and load bearing columns including the rivests which kept the enter columns and outside farcade connected

2. Could the secondary fires have ignightes plastics, aluminum , paper, wood, laminates and other building materials to increase the intial mean temperate of 800% f to 1250 %
Answer: Yes please consult the government fire saftey and MSDS Material Saftey Data Sheets

3. could the result of the blast effects, secondary and third fires (secondary being jp4 pure and third being construction material and office material) have increased the temperatur eto over 1250 % at which point almost all experts agree that steel looses up to 25% of its tensile strenght

Anser: YES.

so why is this so hard to believe folks..

The building collapsed due to a 747 slamming into it at around 350 - 450 mph

The initial BLAST blew away all the insulation as well as loosing a whole lot of the rivets which kept the crossmembers and core tied together

The secondary jp4 fires dumped rivers of hp4 down 4 floors ignighting everything it its path mean temperature of 800 % f

finally ignighting everyting including tons of plastics, aluminum, wood, paper human bodies etc which raised the temperature to over 1250 %

This Plus the loosed unprotected rivets and steel crossmembers then began to buckel (gee i cant figure out why) until finally after 1.5 hours or more the ouside of the building bulges

Kinetic energy takes over and the floor closest to the fire (above it) pankackes first) which is what you see in the videos...

MORONS...

I can write a program to do the calculations but it would mirror what the 9/11 report discovered...

The center of the building collapsed due to the pankacking effect of hundreds of thousands of tons on FIRE from the floors above..

ALSO you MORONS

I WORK with explosives do any of you IDIOTS evean realize how much RDX would be required to take out a building of that size...

Remember the ISLAMIC terrorists BLEW up a VAN )(moving truck) PACKED FULL of 5 tons of explosive in the garage and it only flattened 4 - 8 levels and started no fire...

bin laded FOllowers of the Pedophile mophammed Pork be on his ass is a construction engineer...

If i can figure this out ....

And i dont have 1/2 the degrees this islamo Terrosits has dont you think he could...

The secondary

Posted by: jingoist at July 7, 2006 9:20 PM

ps i hate my keyboard...

Posted by: jingoist at July 7, 2006 9:21 PM

somethingaboutislam:

FOR SOMEONE WHO RANTS ON AGAINST CONSPIRACY THEORIES, YOU'RE PRETTY GOOD AT GENERATING REALLY DUMB ONES. YOU'RE SO FAR OFF THE MARK THAT NO ONE SHOULD TAKE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU SAY AS OF ANY VALUE. BETTER CHANGE YOUR NAME SO YOU WON'T BE RECOGNISED.

'I see that you are also a believer in creation. So you are one of those survivalist, anti-government, anti-semetic, fundamentalist nutcases who prefers religious beliefs to trump science. I was right. You people are a dime a dozen. The only difference between you and the islamic jihadists is the color of your skin. Your thinking and your ideology overlap totally. No wonder you have latched on to this 9/11 conspiracy. Trouble is, you have jumped in bed with Islamic terrorism, the enemy of your country, to further your ideological bent. You are a traitor to your country.

You understand my explanation totally. You know basic physics. But that is not what this is all about. So don't pretend. This is all about your politics. Pro-islam politics. Take it elsewhere. You're busted.'

Posted by: Sonshine at July 7, 2006 10:03 PM

So where is your argument? You have none. (other than all capitals) I just destroyed it. I hope you can go back under the conspiracy rock from whence you came and educate your buddies as you were educated. Most of the people on this site are pretty intelligent. We can smell bullshit a mile away. Not a good place to peddle that classic 9/11 conspiracy mumbo jumbo. It got old fast.

You might try michaelmoore.com

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 7, 2006 10:24 PM

somethingaboutislam:

I used capitals simply to distinguish easily from the quotes - not to shout.

You haven't destroyed any argument, just abused another poster - more rant and more unsubstantiated name-calling which is as wide of the mark as everything else you've said. Not a lot different to much Muslim behaviour. I don't like either.

I'm less inclined to read past the articles now - not sure if I want to waste time separating the wheat from the chaff of what follows them.

But again...for your own sake - no I'll take that back. You know it all already so no none could teach you anything, perhaps you can't even help yourself. But for the benefit of others, silent watchers, who perhaps may 'wonder' despite the crude, bigoted, intimidation you've exerted here, spend a few hours at
> http://911research.wtc7.net/
Hear what is being said. Even if it is only partially right , it is extremely bothering.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 8, 2006 12:55 AM

"Steel girders were NOT melted"

I should have phrased it differently. The actual metal didn't metal but the fire caused by the impact caused intense heat that weakened the support structures and caused the building to fall.

"Would it matter if it was Clinton?"

No, not one bit. It would still be absurd.

Posted by: corli at July 8, 2006 6:18 AM

You know it all already so no none could teach you anything, perhaps you can't even help yourself. But for the benefit of others, silent watchers, who perhaps may 'wonder' despite the crude, bigoted, intimidation you've exerted here, spend a few hours at
> http://911research.wtc7.net/

Yes, well I think I will do that. Even though I have no reason to believe in the fairy tales of idiots, I will still spend my time reading conspiracy websites that blame 9/11 on remote control and demolition devices. There were no islamic terrorists. They were just the fall guy. You know, American and Israel pulled the whole thing off.

You people are are insult to humanity. And an insult to all those people that died that day. And an insult to your country in time of war. And, most importanly, an insult to intelligence. Did I mention an insult to Newtonian physics?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 8, 2006 7:58 AM

I look straight at DATA

This is my JOB...

I do this for a living...

If the data supports either conclusion fine..

But the DATA has to be there if their is truth in it....

Everything hat is physical can be modeled to some degree or fashion..

What i am attempting to point out is..

A. Which side of these arguments has the most DATA
B. Is the DATA Valid?
C. Can it be Modeled ? (kinda hard to slam airliners into buildings) i admit
D. Is there supporting DATA / Testing on or in the government archives that supports either claim.

I have already PROVEN that there is sufficient evidence to support with over 90% accuracy the 9/11 and the pbs.org claims about how the towers succommed to their wounds

I have also shown that with all of the data , video, audio, and yes the earthquake sensor data this also supports EXATLY what the 9/11 commission stated..

There is NO evidence as proven by the popular mechanics articles (*which involded over 70) engineers, firemen, aircraft desigers) etc. that some form of explosives brought the buildings down...

COME ON FOLKS..

We found Traces of c4 in the pan am flight 103 over scotland, we found traces of c4 / semtex in other Islamic terrorist attacks...

Do you really think our Government which i love but generally is incompetent... at keeping anything a secret... could somehow

GRAB 4 airlines
EXECUTE all the Hostages
Stuff them into the passenger cabins
Load up the aircraft with tons of explosives
Pilot them remotely (do-able)
Slam them into your own countries buildings causing more mass death
Then set the explosives so they arent incinerated upon impact at 450 mph
Then wait over 1 hour so people can get out..
Before hitting the BIG RED BUTTON
To destroy the buildings
So we can make war
On an ISLAIC NUT JOB sitting in a diaper in his cave in afghanistan???

WHAT DRUGS ARE the Democrats and the leftists handing OUT????

I WANT SOME???

Posted by: jingoist at July 8, 2006 11:48 AM

'There is NO evidence as proven by the popular mechanics articles (*which involded over 70) engineers, firemen, aircraft desigers) etc. that some form of explosives brought the buildings down...'

Read
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html
for a critique of the Popular Machanics article.

Not quite as hot as you make out.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 8, 2006 4:54 PM

Below is a link to a video of a 747 contrailing high in the atmosphere. It is a close up video. You can see that the "spray" is just condensation coming from the engines. Down on the ground, however, your imagination can come up with all kinds of sinister things.

Conspiracy people see the everyday and think the sinister. But only because they don't know any better AND they WANT to believe the sinister.

A lot of people like conspiracy theories, even me, as long as they don't insult basic common sense or the decency of your own people. But some of them go too far in their lunacy and it becomes seditious. But some of these people hate their government and will believe anything bad some nut can come up with. Such as the idea that airplane contrails are really chemical sprays to poison us!

Check out the video and see for yourself what it looks like up close. Paranoia reigns supreme when you don't have knowledge. Then the human mind conjures up all kinds of bogeymen - especially if such bogeymen already fit an already suspicious mind, or an mind already programmed to believe that the US government is some type of evil cabal.

contrails up close

enlarge your video screen to max

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 8, 2006 6:01 PM

somethingaboutislam:

For one who claims to be logical, your logic ain't too great here. Your line goes like this, if not explicit, implied.

'Because there are some loony conspiracy theories around, therefore there are no conspiracies.'

Well I'm sorry, that does not follow.

Actually, despite your flawed argument, you believe a conspiracy theory. It is called the official story re 911. Muslim terrorists 'conspired' to destroy the WTC - as part of global jihad.

RE 911 we have competing conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, as is bewailed on this site a great many times, the present US administration seems to refuse to acknowledge the aspirations of Islam itself, or see Islam as the problem, and diverts attention from it to 'terrorists'. Why? Are they just plain dumb? You do not have to read very much to see it is Islam which is the global threat, not just a bunch of 'terrorists'. Islam is a terror belief system and inspires its followers to terrorise infidels when the time is right. Yet people in power will not say this. Why not?

The present US Administration apparently sees no problem with millions of illegal alliens crossing into the US from Mexico - something which has the potential to destroy America. Why not?

Was Watergate a 'conspiracy' executed from the highest levels of the American Government? Was there a 'conspiracy' to conceal that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by a missile? Certainly looks like it. If so, where would that conspiracy have originated? The highest levels of the Clinton Administration? Clinton himself?

That's just two. Perhaps you know of others.

So...any rational person recognises that there most definitely are conspiracies around. The question is, is everything claimed to be a conspiracy, actually one?

Of course not. What is needed is for the claim of conspiracy to be evaluated to see whether it stacks up as a genuine conspiracy.

I don't accept all and every claim re 911 put up by the wide range of 911 sceptics, and I don't like the politics of many of them. I most certainly do not have a complete picture of how it all fits together, and there are implications I would prefer not to have to consider. However, there are just too many anomolies in the official story for it to hang together. Numerous people clearly knew the attack was going to occur, for example, some of them traded on the stock exchange in anticipation of it. And contra to the claims made here, while having a plane fly into you would certain knock your socks off, I am not convinced that such an event was sufficient to account for the collapse of the towers THE WAY THEY COLLAPSED.

Let's say that some top floors collapsed onto the ones beneath and began a chain reaction which took down all the floors beneath. Perhaps possible. However such an event would not take down the central core. Nor would the rate of collapse be at essentially free fall speed. The lower floors, and all the immensely strong exterior structure, would put up some resistance, and slow the rate of collapse significantly. And if the massive central core began some sort of collapse at the high levels, the lower parts of it, which retained all their strength would have resisted to the point, I imagine, of not only slowing down the rate of collapse, but diverting the upper portions of it off to the sides.

Yet neither of these things happened. The collapse of both towers, and of WTC7 were essentially free fall speed. The towers came down pretty well at the same speed as the free falling debris, WTC 7 was a bit over a second higher than free fall speed, and the towers I think about 4 or 5 seconds over it. This means that even the massive central core of the towers put up no resistence to the collapse.

Even one of the official reports put the collapse time of the towers incorrectly at 10 seconds, seeming not to understand the implications of such a collapse time.

Now if you don't find the speed of collapse fishy, well I do.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 8, 2006 7:14 PM

Sonshine:

Please again explain why you continue to believe this?

Because your logic is not Logical nor scientificly based while mine is...

If you so desire we can begin in ernest a detailed model and begin to calculate the results..

ANY engineering class should be able to do the basic computations and compare that with the model to confirm what is already well known..

A. The maximum weight of the 10 - 15 floors above.
B. Maxmum load placed upon normal load bearing columns
C. Was there Evidence the central core of the building was comprimised (YES) there was debris in the LOBBY and the elevator doors were closed...
Other reports from eye witnesses describe a huge slamming effect right after the initial impact throught the building...

D. This is caused by rapid pressurization and de-pressurizing as the ensuing BLAST pushed then sucked all of the air from the entire central core...

Come on here please....

A 747 2/3 loaded slamms into the building with such force it blows out 4 floors and you think that it had no effect on the central core..

WRONG...

A blast that huge would be the equivelant of several 500 lb Bombs...

Actually i was really close to 4 500 ponders being dropped LIVE 1/2 mile away (to close actually) we werent supposed to be anywheres near that ridge when the a10 came in...

That BLAST which i witnessed was SMALLER than the blast that came from a 747 fully loaded...

IDIOTS...
Dont you have a clue as to how much kinetic energy a 747 has flying almost fully fueled and at 450 MPH??????

The building took the impact as it was designed but they never anticipated a plane as BIG as the 747 HITTING IT...

When the building was designed in 1973 the largest aircraft it was antipated to ever hit it was the Boeing 707 which is 1/3 smaller and approx 1/2 the weight....

MORONS??

Do i have to write a c program to spell it out for your tin foil covered BRAIN!

Posted by: jingoist at July 8, 2006 8:56 PM

jingoist:

What am I supposed to take from your name? 'Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy and chauvinistic patriotism'.

'Belligerent' fits anyway.

'Chauvinistic' is 'Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country, fanatical patriotism. Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's own gender, group or kind', I guess 'thoughts' could validly be added to that list. Yep, some of that could fit also.

You said: ‘Please again explain why you continue to believe this?’

Perhaps you should just read what I have already written. And then go and spend a few hours reading on the site I have mentioned repeatedly > http://911research.wtc7.net/

Perhaps I should point out they weren’t 747’s that hit the towers but 757’s – just a small point. And a 707 is still a pretty big plane, and they were allowed for. Further, what excess was allowed for over and above a 707? Buildings such as this are not designed to the minimum requirements.

Yes, no doubt about it. Any engineering class would be able to do the calcs IF…they could have an open inquiry as to all the factors they needed to plug in, with out jingoists intimidating others out of including all data. What would be really good would be to have a copy of all the original plans and engineering calculations as a base to start from.

Of course you won’t come away unscathed from having a 757 run over you, but photos show live people in the planes entry hole. How did they survive the impact on that floor? And firemen had got to the impact level and reported the fires were not excessive. And the South Tower plane missed the core and most of its fuel ignited outside the building - thus the massive fireball that was so spectacular.

Did the planes blow out four floors? How do you know?

Just because you had bombs dropped near you, doesn’t mean you are an expert on building collapses. Perhaps you got concussed and never got over it.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 8, 2006 10:13 PM

Sonshine, the problem you are having is not that you can't understand how a building can collapse one floor on top of another, it's just that you don't WANT to believe that the bad guys are muslims and not the US government men in black. That is not a engineering problem for you. That is an ideological one. So what more can anyone say to you to convince you? There is nothing. Arguing with people like you is pointless because the argument is all about ideology in the end, not engineering. What I want you to know, however, is that you certainly can't peddle that stuff to intelligent people, not here.

Those terrorists boarded that flight, their voices are on the ATC transcripts, the flight attendants calls to ground were recorded, a hijacking was reported, the terrorists belongings and last will and testaments were left behind, their boss, bin laden, praised their martydom, and subsequent plots to repeat those attacks have been foiled by authorities more than once.

Of course, to you, all of this is just part of the conspiracy. The moon landings were a fake. The photos from the moon were fake. And that video I posted of that plane flying overhead? That is not a plane leaving a trail of condensation. No, it is spraying a liquid chemical magically out the back of the engines to poison the people.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 8, 2006 10:19 PM

Perhaps I should point out they weren’t 747’s that hit the towers but 757’s – just a small point. And a 707 is still a pretty big plane, and they were allowed for. Further, what excess was allowed for over and above a 707? Buildings such as this are not designed to the minimum requirements.

Those were never requirements to begin with. No buildings were required to take hits from jetliners! Still aren't. Robertson, the engineer of the world trade center, incorporated that idea into his design.

1. But the damage model never took into consideration fire. It only took into consideration initial structure damage. Fire is what weakened the structure. Nor did they take into consideration the idea that the impact would blast the fire protectant insulation off the steel.

2. There were 767s, not 757s. And a 767 is almost twice the mass of a 707. And it hit at three times the normal approach speed. So that means that that 767 had 16 times the kinetic energy of the 707 disaster scenario, as energy is to the square of the speed.

3. What makes you say that most of the fuel did not enter builing 2? That plane hit that building with all of its wings. So all the fuel went into the building and ignited. Some of the fireball carried through and exited on the other side. So what? A fireball like that is created with atomized fuel which is almost all air. It takes very little fuel to create a fire ball in any case. The amount of fuel required to propel your 3000 lb car down your street 100 yards is but a couple drops.

But all this is like pissing into the wind. You don't WANT to believe it. That's the rub.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 8, 2006 10:38 PM

Opps - 767's not 757's. Apologies.

somethingaboutislam: You sound like a jingoist also.

So...are there genuine conspiracies out there, or are there not? You didn't mention that. Are there any genuine ones?

You've mentioned some that aren't, but what does that prove? That there are some fake ones, that's all. Guilt by association, but there is no logical connection.

And...the issue is not whether or not muslims hijacked the planes and flew them into buildings. Its whether or not planes flying into buildings - or not flying into buildings in the case of WTC7 - would bring about the collapse of the buildings in the way they collapsed.

And bluster and abuse does not win the case.

But anyway, who said the original calcs only took into account impact and not fires? It would have to be pretty dumb to leave fires out of consideration. After all, how would the plane get to impact the building? Circle until all its fuel was used up and then glide in for impact? I don't think any engineer designing a structure like this would leave out such an important matter.

But then again, no doubt he had to design it to withstand towering inferno fires without impacts. And the facts are, no skyscraper prior to 911 had collapsed as a result of fires, ever - and there have been some very long and intense fires in tall metal framed buildings. Yet on 911 three such buildings collapsed and you want me to believe that fires were the clinchers that brought them all down?

Posted by: Sonshine at July 8, 2006 11:18 PM

And the facts are, no skyscraper prior to 911 had collapsed as a result of fires, ever - and there have been some very long and intense fires in tall metal framed buildings.

Again, you show that you speak without having knowledge. The world trade center towers were designed in a new style. They were essentially hollow with no supporting columns anywhere on the floor space. That was to maximize the office space. This revolutionary design relied on floor trusses to support the load that pillars would have supported in a TRADITIONAL building. When those floor trusses sagged from the heat, that support was lost and the building above the fire was put into motion.

But anyway, who said the original calcs only took into account impact and not fires? It would have to be pretty dumb to leave fires out of consideration.

Again, your brain is the moon. What have we been saying? Where have you been the last 5 years? The impact did something no one figured on. It blasted the fire insulation off the trusses. So they weren't protected from the fire.

But like I said before, trying to educate someone like you is pointless because you don't WANT to be educated. You have no "evidence", no argument, no logic, no common sense, no understanding of the issues involved, and you don't even read properly. Yet you continue to rant on about your conspiracy.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 9, 2006 9:50 AM

somethingaboutislam:

More abuse...

So...you appear to hold to the ideas that building was not actually very well designed, and that the floors pancaked down on each other. Well I don't believe the first point, nor the second as the mechanism of collapse. Re the second one, where did all the concrete in floors go? If they had pancaked we should have had a stack of 100 odd pancaked floors at ground level once the collapse was over. There wasn't.

The towers were not essentially a hollow tube as you imply. Yes, the outside was essentially an immensely strong tube. But here was also a massive central core that was the main weight carry structure.

Look at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/construction.html

Going one way the floors only comprised about 1/3rd of the building width, and perhaps 2/3rds of it the other way. Everything else would have been unaffected by floor collapse as it was the centra core made up of something like 47 massive vertical steel columns.

But then the outside shell also was clearly immensely strong, an interlocking shell of closely spaced and connected vertical columns.

Who says that the (asbestos) fire protection was blown off by the initial blast? Or if some was, what beams/columns were exposed? And if it was, where is the evidence that the structural steel would have been compromised by the heat they were subject to? Actually, who knows what heat they were exposed to? Where is the definite tests re this? People survived on the blast levels, so why shouldn't steel?

So...you say...the floors pancaked. That's the floors. What about the central core of the building?

Posted by: Sonshine at July 9, 2006 4:08 PM

where did all the concrete in floors go? If they had pancaked we should have had a stack of 100 odd pancaked floors at ground level once the collapse was over. There wasn't.

I had a good laugh at that. Everytime you open your mouth you reveal the level of your understanding.

What do you think all that dust was that covered Manhattan? Where do you think it came from? That was concrete dust. Created from the pulverization of all that concrete.

The buildings were very well designed. But not designed to take a 767 at 500 mph. No building is designed for that.

The buildings were mostly hollow except for the core. There were no interior supporting columns. Only the core. And the core was wiped out when the plane went into the building. So what is supporting all of the rest of the ceiling below each floor if there are no interior columns?

In this design, the weight of each floor is supported by the exterior columns. And those columns are braced in place by the floor trusses! Those floor trusses were the weak link once they softened with heat, not to mention all the exterior columns wiped out in the impact. Get it now? No, of course not.

'Who says the fire insulation was blown off?' The eyes of everyone at the site who could see that the trusses at the wound had no insulation. But of course, all those people were in on the conspiracy. Just like all the investigators. Just like the police, the fire department, the port authority, George Bush, the FBI, the eyewitnesses, the people of NYC, and everybody else. The whole world is in on it, except for a few, rogue, patriots like those who put up these conspiracy blogs, which by the way, simply repeat and rehash the same stuff between them. The one common denominator between them is that they are all anti-government, right or left, wackos.

The only thing we need to wonder about, is how did those buildings take that kind of blow and stay standing that long afterwards? That is what engineers marvelled at.

But you idiots marvel that they collapsed.

D'oh!

Why not just stop reading the conspiracy websites and start looking at world like a normal person, instead of some nutcase with an agenda? Try it for a day.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 9, 2006 10:20 PM

Take a look at this photo. It reveals just how hollow the trade center was. With the sun behind, you can see right through the building.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 9, 2006 10:42 PM

Nice picture.

No one is disputing the method of construction. What is in dispute is the strength of the method of construction and if there was going to be some sort of collapse as a result of a plane flying into it, whether that event explains the type of collapse that occurred. The sceptics say it doesn't.

The plane that went into the North tower was lined up apparently on the core. The one that hit the South tower wasn't.

Where did all the concrete go? Your right. It was pulverised. Why? How come? Conventional collapses don't pulverise concrete. Break it. Yes. Shatter it. Yes. Pulverise it. No.

Yes, and I know that the steel on the site did not have any asbestos on it any more. But there should have been as according to the official story it was blast removed, and that would have happened only on the impact floors.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 10, 2006 2:09 AM

Where did all the concrete go? Your right. It was pulverised. Why? How come? Conventional collapses don't pulverise concrete. Break it. Yes. Shatter it. Yes. Pulverise it. No.

Think about what you just said. A conventional collapse. What the conspiracists like you believe is that the collapse was trigged by demolition explosives, rather than it failing on its own. But either way, when a building collapses, the concrete is pulverized and ends up producing a huge cloud of dust. The only difference with a demolition, is that the steel columns are pre-weakened, and a little explosive breaks them. Either way, the concrete gets pulverized in the collapse.

but there should have been as according to the official story it was blast removed, and that would have happened only on the impact floors.

That's what I mean. It was only at those floors, at the wound, requiring only one floor to be precise, to trigger the collapse. And as we already have established, once that huge block of upper floors accelerated downward, it crushed the floor beneath it, which in turn crushed the floor below it, and so on, in a domino effect. The floors are made from concrete. So as each floor was squashed from above, that concrete was pulverized and the air pressure blew much of it out the sides creating that huge dust cloud.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 10, 2006 7:41 AM

I have concluded that Sonshine sees what he/she wants to see. Sonshine is also the proverbial fencepost. It's a waste of time reasoning with a Fencepost, which would be a good typekey screen name.

About the jet contrails, you can also see contrails from B-17s, B24s, and B-29s in WW2 combat film.

Posted by: Pelayo at July 10, 2006 10:38 PM

More abuse...

Posted by: Sonshine at July 11, 2006 5:54 AM

I love this. It is interesting to observe people's reactions to science and to horror. Those who need to believe the government is looking out for them and would not commit such a crime as 911 will toss science and come up with the most ridiculous reasons why the official story is true. Of course nothing compares with the fantastic story concocted by the government and media (no not the news). If you believe the governments story then I'm afraid YOU need to do a lot more research. Unlike the physical evidence which was completely destroyed there remains a wealth of video and oral accounts of what happened on that day. Hey people you are nothing more than bugs among the giants that rule the world. Look below the surface if you have the guts.
As a UW Madison grad I laud the guts of the efforts and balls Barrett apparently has. Become a patriot and take back the US. Preserve the constitution.
If you read German history you may be having deja vu. Try 1938 or so after the Reichstag had been burned by the Nazis. Common Germans never realized what their government was capable of. They believed the propoganda and remained good, Patriotic citizens.

Posted by: treachery at July 11, 2006 12:30 PM

Hey SomethingAboutIslam,

Ok the domino effect. First what about Tower #7 did someone leave a candle burning?

The towers 1 & 2 collapsed at a rate of 10 floors per second. How do you account for that. That's at a rate of an object falling through a vacuum. You know, no resistance such as you'd have when one floor is pressing upon the one below. Did you ever examine how the building was constructed? Apparently not. It was built in 3 modules, stacked. Not 120 some floors all the same.
And don't you think if these freakin' buildings could have possibly collapsed completely with only about 1 hour of fire that someone would have bothered to examine WHY they came down so quickly. Isn't that a freakin hazard in our SAFETY Conscious, gotta have a sticker everywherre society. Don't you think there should be warnings on all multistory,steel (safest design in the world) buildings that warns "Caution building may collapse after one hour of fire"?
What happened to the central core? If the FLOORS collapsed why did the vertical members collapse.
RU Nuts?

Posted by: treachery at July 11, 2006 12:37 PM

SomethingAboutIslam:

I'm new to this site and read a few more of your posts. Who's payroll are you on? You appear to have an agenda of obfuscating and redirecting rational argument.

Posted by: treachery at July 11, 2006 12:58 PM

To treachery...
You wrote..
If you read German history you may be having deja vu. Try 1938 or so after the Reichstag had been burned by the Nazis. Common Germans never realized what their government was capable of. They believed the propoganda and remained good, Patriotic citizens.

Now i for one am not a blind idiot..
Nor do i just rubber stamp everything the government does..

But while the germans did burn down the Reichstag
and blamed it upon the Jews (and other non patriotic nazis)...

I ask you this...

1. AGAIN our government cant keep ANYTHING secrect for more than 90 days before it is splashed all over the world press (expecially the new duranty times)...

2. What would the government gain from striking our own country and then blaming some Islamic NAZI with a diaper wrtapped around his head in a cave in afghanistan?

3. What about ALL of the VIDEO and AUDIO evidence from the Islamo Nazis themselves?

Or are they all on the CIA / FBI payroll????

COME ON.... if you really believe this...

Then you must also believe that bush and cheny met with osama before 2000 and conspired with him to attack 6 months after the election...
So they could then blame osama (your mama) for the horrific act..

Also that they managed to
A. Kill all of the passengers (and somehow managed to cover it up) While the aircraft was boarding...

B. took the planes off with only the Islamic hijackers alive..

C. Then killed them off (and took over the planes via remote control)...

D. FAKED all of the Cell phone calls to loved ones (by the way who was calling them) was this outsourced to india (again part of the Bush cheny plot) for world domination...

E. managed to FOOL ALL of the relatives and the air traffic controllers (who ever was doing all of the calling and radio communications) must have been a better ventriloquist than Mel Blanc..

F. then killed off the pilots and rammed the aircraft into the towers..

G. at the same time SEAL teams climed up the elevator shafts having been in place 36 hours before..

H. Then using cranes inside the shafts and the central core... WIRED up thermit at exactly the floors they knew the aircraft was going to hit...

G. Then left the building all without anyone ever showing up on any of the security cameras..

H. then when the aircraft hit blowing out 4 floors they waited while the fires burned for over 1 hour ...

Amazingly even thought the aircraft almost went through the building NONE of the wires or equipment required to DETONATE the so called planted explosives were damaged...

I finally at the right time (after the building was full of police and fireman...

Our own governemnt (or maybe Bush and Cheny both pulled out RED keys

Opened a locked box with 2 locks at the same time..

And simultaniously set off explosives in 4 different places across the country ....

And NONE of this has ever been discovered (even though it is proven) that our own government is incapable of keeping anything secret...

Until of course it was all exposed by a bunch of DRUG Snorting (leftist wakos) sitting in an armchair in their appartments after just watching the videos.. of 9/11

Man either the LEFTIST nut jobs are so brilliant even their crap shines brighter than the SUN..

OR...

They are on such powerful DRUGS that they are incapable of telling what year they are living in...

I KNOW based upon STATISTICAL analysis that the answer is B...

MORONS

Posted by: jingoist at July 11, 2006 3:29 PM

somethingaboutislam:

You may not be a 'blind idiot' but you are abusive.

So...let me get this straight. You think the towers collapsed with not just the floors pancaking down at just over free fall speed - and being totally pulverised in the process such that no concrete chunks remained - but the massively strong central core comprising 47 vertical box columns (at the bottom 100mm thick steel), and which was independant of the floors, came down at precisely the same speed and did not offer any resistance at all. That is what you are saying is it?

Further, the downward collapse was able to blow huge chucks of steel away from the building at great force as seen in all the collapse videos.

Further, the intact top 30 floors of the South tower, which had tilted by about 30 degrees also pancaked to utter and total and unrecognisable destruction. It was already rotating. Why did not not continue to do so?

PS: Re the nice photo you linked to. I'm not sure that tells us much. The towers are against the sun and the light coming through the building bends around the exterior columns and almost makes them disappear, giving the appearance as if there actually was not much to the towers. Obviously this is not correct. Those exterior columns were not a trivial structure. Further the photo was taken in the direction at right angles to the largest direction of the central core.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 11, 2006 5:05 PM

SomethingAbou:

I'll address a few points you make after all we don't need to solve the case here just shed enough doubt on it to get a serious and complete investigation of how it happened. Way too many inconsistencies and questions. You people get angry with the "conspiracists" which is stupid considering we only want answers to the questions we raise not another cover-up.
If you can't handle that then keep it up because you must prefer fascist rule and the warm fuzzy confines of thought control.

No the WTC1&2&7 were wired before the event, probably during the powerdown the weekend before. Those planes flew East for some inexplicable reason they wanted to make a Sunday drive out of it and not head directly. Guess they wanted to test the great Satan's air defenses. Remember the planes sort of disappeared until boom they crashed into the towers and Petagone. When the transponders are turned off the FAA can't determine elevation they just lost the planes. The military however can determine altitude and location. What happened to them? It's hard to say but if there are body parts then they were killed by someone somewhere. There is no hard evidence on Osama only what you're told. We needed a quick enemy to divert attention from the crime scene. That worked very well, obviously.
I've not heard enough of the 911 calls to have an opinion. I tend to believe that there was a passenger revolt over PA and that is why that plane went down. As far as the terrorists getting on board, yep we needed pictures of them to have the enemy we so desperately needed. You think we'd be burning the billions in Iraq without the towers being blown? I guarantee you we'd not be paying 3 bucks at the pumps either. But we'll never know.
Gosh how could innocent people be killed, that's ridiculous.

If the official version of the collapse is true then why wasn't there an investigation of the collapse to make sure whatever the error in construction was it never happen again. If fire leveled them why aren't existing towers being fixed? After all they were designed to handle the impact of an airliner. I would think someone would want to know how they let go. Rivets popping loose? Is there mind control going on here??

Posted by: treachery at July 11, 2006 8:25 PM

pythogoras:
Nothing to gain? How about control of the supply in Iraq? Oil companies have been making a killing since 911. How about lots of money for military and security? How about some pea brained chimp getting to be wartime president? No that last one probably doesn't make the top ten.

Wonder what was discussed in the SECRET Cheney, Kenny Boy Ley meetings? What's the secret Mr. Dick? Kenny Boy won't be talking about it will he?

Posted by: treachery at July 11, 2006 9:11 PM

Jingoist:

OK, lots of obfuscation here concerning jet fuel. So what about WTC 7. What flew into that. Oh yea flying chunks of steel knocked over a kerosene lamp. How come something just didn't tip or sag here? What were the intense explosions followed by clouds of concrete dust coming from the WTC basements? Why did the firemen report seeing loud explosions and flashes prior to the implostion. Whoops shouldn't use implosion, how about the collapse?

I heard the FBI uncovered a terrorist plot to start wildfires in California. You I always wondered who was behind those fires all these years. I think we need security screens on the forests, maybe a couple goons every few miles.
But then again since when has National Security ever been a priority of the Administration? Not lately folks. If people would only wake up!

Posted by: treachery at July 11, 2006 9:16 PM

The Secondary:

You had a good post. Constructive.

Questions: How much RDX would it take?
Why no rubble?
Why did outer steel members get blown 600' out?
Why was steel burning 5 weeks in the basements? What ignited it?
Why did the lobbies have signs of explosions prior to building collapse?
How do you know what the burn temperatures were anywhere?
Why did all the vertical members come down at the same time?

And the question no one touches is how on earth could there have been such a catastrophic failure of 3 buildings and no investigation conclusive evidence into how they failed. I'm talking about examining the structurals, the rivets, the failure points, etc. You ever look at the painstaking reconstuction involved in TWA 800? They brought thousands and thousands of tiny pieces off the floor of the Atlantic to figure it out because that plane shouldn't have come down either?
Why won't the Pentagon release any of the film they have of the plane coming in on their building? Lots of cameras on the roof, nothing top secret about how cameras work? What the hell are they hiding?

Last question, is this a democracy?

Posted by: treachery at July 12, 2006 1:54 AM

Opps again.

That should have been 'jingoist' rather than 'somethingaboutislam' who may not be a 'blind idiot'...but both are abusive.

Posted by: Sonshine at July 12, 2006 3:34 AM

treachery:

'...is this a democracy?'

I'm not an American, but even I know that the US is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic - or at least, was founded as one.

Apparently the founding fathers loathed the idea of democracy.

See for one instance - with relevance to this site:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49052

Posted by: Sonshine at July 12, 2006 5:44 AM