CNN-Build Islamic center on Ground Zero, says Michael Moore

[NonServiam]

The Pentagon is the smoking gun for me. Just a round hole.

The truth movement does have that argument, then again the other side makes the point that airplanes don't necessarily make an exact outline of themselves like Wile E. Coyote when he hits the side of a mountain. A car going through a building doesn't either as some parts of the structure are weaker than others give way outside of what would be the outline.

I think I'll watch that clip of gangsta hit by ice cream truck again for a good laugh and take my thimble off the board.

Here's some food for thought which more than anything I found to be really funny and thought I'd share. As always in a nanny-state, The following may contain material not suitable for younger viewers. Viewer discretion is advised:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

[MGX]

If one wants the best info regarding buildings, then a structural engineer is the person you ought to talk to.

Engineers have recreated the entire scenario using finite element analysis and gotten excellent (very near corresponding) results. Just a few notes:

1. structures generally use only a small portion of beams when diagrammed in a stress/strain curve
2. heat lowers the curve on the stress strain relationship
3. fires + additional loading from upper floors contributed to the implosion
4. planes' wings are not as rigid as people think

I stick to the engineers and scientists for reliable data. 9.11 was not an inside job. It was the act of terrorists. Failures to perceive reality were present in the administration at the time.

[GENERAL BILLY]

In 20 years there will be assholes saying 9-11 never happened or that it really happened in October. I recommended that all 9-11 truthers choose more ridiculously contrary positions now before all the best ones are taken.

[truthwolf1]

The impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors. The large amount of fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and brought about the collapse of the towers. NYPD aviation unit photos/video support this sequence of events for each tower.

The fires raged for nearly an hour, and these were not your ordinary fires. There is also a difference in temperature and heat. WTC also had very different construction than most skyscrapers, it has the perimeter columns, but it also has that inner column or tube. That's where your bowing (not Boeing lol) comes in.

The building didn't collapse until 5:21, that's nearly seven hours of fire (including diesel fuel which may have ignited in the basement) in conjunction with the large gash on the south side which took out nearly ten floors. At 5:20, firefighters began to hear creaking and crumbling. At 5:21, it collapsed. Due to the smaller scale of the building there isn't nearly as much smoke and debris to obscure it's collapse, and I don't see anything remotely similar to a controlled demolition other than the collapse itself. No detonation flashes, no detonations heard.

I think we all can admit here that the tragic events of that day were just as we saw them. No holograms, no computer generated images, etc... I think the debate here is how much gov't involvement, knowledge, and cover-up is there. I think certain persons in gov't intelligence knew of the attacks. I think they were about five steps behind though which may have kept them from knowing which flights and when. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if they in fact knew every detail, but had to keep their mouths shut as their was a larger plan at works for American war motive and oil.

I'm just not convinced it was controlled demolition or orchestrated by the gov't. Gov't knowledge, but not orchestration. I think they let it happen.

The bowing theory, is just that a theory as well as the demolition theory, minus the nano-thermite particles.
It looks very convincing on the History Channel and agree it seems like a very good explanation for a ex house framer with a little experience with weight loads, in a "wow", that's how it could of happened with a supporting base.
The images definately show a buckle/bow of some sort and I agree there were fires/extra weight of a passenger plane which also added to the pull/twist. No, holograms or ufo's in my mind on that one. The fact however is that noboby was on the inside of the building documenting exactly what was happening.
Although the NIST models all look very convincing to a non-engineer like myself, I just cannot escape the thought that a demolition is a little more convincing. It would explain better that free-fall speed, the squibs, flashes, replica scenes of buildings dropping within their own footprints, etc.
Many of us do question the events of that day and are only growing in numbers. If it's not the collapses it is something else that just does not seem right about that day or is questionable. The biggest mistake the government did on this topic as with every other conspiracy is to rush the investigation. They were trying to save their asse's and left way too much on the table for private interests to find and explore. Not trying to change anybodys mind about it but I just find this topic as with many other cover-ups absolutely fascinating.

[tom502]

Building 7 was "pulled".

[truthwolf1]

[sgreger1]

I agree with you nonserviam. I think there was too much fail for something not to be up though. Like you, I think more than anythign they knew about it and let it happen to an extent to further their own interests. I don't necessarily buy the idea that there was a demolition or anything, mainly I think Gov pruposely was slow to respond. Kind of like apearl harbor.


As for flgiht 93, American's arent the type to rush the cockpit and crash the plane when they see it being hijacked. planes are hijacked all the time and usually they try to ransom it. Most passengers just sit down and shit up, as demonstrated on the other 3 flights that successfully hit their targets. I don't trust any supposed black box info or anything else, as that can all be manipulated. I can acept either that people heoricly killed themselves for the greater good of the nation, or that the air force shot them down. Either way it was a good end-result.


And as an fyi, I actually dreamed about 9-11 happening before it happened. But in my dream it was a weather weapon that brought down the towers in new york, not planes. Kinda cool huh? Tom, i'll let you pick up on that one lol.

[NonServiam]

Building 7 was "pulled".

Silverstein's comment is interesting. I will throw you a bone here with a theory more to your interpretation.

1) "Pull it" was an old term used when demolition required cables
2) "Pull it" is also a term used in firefighting "to pull the operation"
3) Why would Silverstein so blatantly incriminate himself
4) No multiple detonations heard. One boom heard when the top penthouse collapses into the interior of the building.
5) Controlled demolition would require days of preparation (unless their was previous knowledge of the attacks)

Now here is one theory that does seem plausible to me in your favor. What if it was "pulled" but in the sense of cables attached to the critical columns. That would explain the lack of detonations heard. I still stand by my collapse due to damage theory, but this one is possible.

Problem is, at no time in history have we had an identical or even remotely similar event to compare this to. If we had a previous model with the exact or similar variables given here, we could make better conclusions based on indescrepancies and expectations. It's one of those things that the more you research it, the more confused you can become.

So many questions, so little answers.


Now in order to keep this thread to it's original topic, we now return to regularly scheduled programming........I usually don't agree very much with Michael Moore, but he can be entertaining at times.