I watched that documentary and loved it, but then I had drank some whisky and taken quite a few of valium. The one bit I remember though, is the bit where the narrator says that it is physically impossible for kerosene to burn hot enough to vaporise the metal that the engines were made of (titanium?). Any chemists here know if that's true (or know how to make aether...)?

ps. how come everyone on here (or a significant proportion) is so rude? It's kind of annoying. But then I am the sensitive type.

pps. I think most documentaries have music in them. Don't they?

greg wrote:Are people treating these "conspiracies" with the same scrutiny that kept them from accepting the facts in the first place, or is there a lot of irony here?

Are you asking me if I'm more willing to accept a conspiracy theory if it implicates people like the Bush family and Dick Cheney and Big Oil and the PNAC crowd and the MI5 and the Mossad and virtually every multinational corporation that runs on the business of war?

The answer is yes. I do not feel these are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt. Means and motive. Prior history- similar events on a smaller scale, giving confidence that the scheme would work on a larger scale.

There is no profit in peace for much of the world's economy. The mental roadblock that many people arrive at quickly when they think about an alternate history of 9/11 is:

"The government wouldn't kill their own people."

Break that sentence down.

The government? These people elected themselves. They owned Katherine Harris, they own the media, and they own the Supreme Court, and they probably owned Al Gore, based on his giftwrapping every Red State for Karl Rove with Joe Lieberman, America's Most Unelectable Jew.

Their own people? These people are elites. You can't observe the world they operate in. They feel no commonality with the people who died on 9/11. Their children aren't on the battlefields of Iraq, and they weren't NYC cops or firefighters.

We little folks are cattle to them. We work the jobs they give us for the salary they give us until they can give the job to somebody overseas. We live the lives they grant us until the deaths of a paltry couple thousand of us are needed to set in motion the Project For The New American Century.

The empire strikes back at you every day. You probably can't stop them, but you can at least call them liars when they claim innocence.

greg wrote:I too am sick of hearing legitimate professionals tell me what's true and what isn't. I want to pick that myself.

Good for you. All smart people stand a fighting chance to at least see what's about to hit them.

Germ War wrote:
I don't see how people can straight-up dismiss the possibility that this was an inside job. But, then, I remember how pissed people were at those A-rabs about Oklahoma City until they found out it was an American.

OKC Murrah building was another building that collapsed with the aid of inside charges, since any rational person knows that the concussive power of a fertilizer and fuel oil bomb exploding in a UHaul ( and radiating in all directions ) parked across nearly 100 feet of plaza isn't capable of snapping those support pillars like trees in a hurricane.

Germ War wrote:P.S. Was there ever any further evidence given about the 11 or 12 hijackers that are still alive?

Depends who you're willing to take your evidence from- the people who found the passport of clean shaven Muslim fanatic terror pilot Mohammad Atta floating gently to rest outside WTC1 but couldn't locate the cockpit voice recorder of the plane he allegedly flew, or the BAD CONSPIRACY PEOPLE?

All fanatical Muslim hijackers have similarly unpronounceable names and interchangeable faces, so if you saw a few wandering around Karachi, they're just brothers or cousins.

clocker bob wrote:

greg wrote:Are people treating these "conspiracies" with the same scrutiny that kept them from accepting the facts in the first place, or is there a lot of irony here?

Are you asking me if I'm more willing to accept a conspiracy theory if it implicates people like the Bush family and Dick Cheney and Big Oil and the PNAC crowd and the MI5 and the Mossad and virtually every multinational corporation that runs on the business of war?

The answer is yes. I do not feel these are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt. Means and motive. Prior history- similar events on a smaller scale, giving confidence that the scheme would work on a larger scale.

Correct, these people are not trustworthy. However, they are not the people put to the task of finding out what happened. There are thousands of people with varying backgrounds who are. People who actually know what they are talking about (kerosene, implosions, dealing with ten thousand freaked out witnesses). It is easy to cherry-pick inconsistencies, and imagine an exciting conclusion.

I watched this when it was broadcasted, and read interviews with the original architect team (with same conclusions). Not that I learn everything from TV, but I'll take that word over techno-dude's "Take another look, see that white spot."
I hope that the mountain of mundane evidence can be interesting enough for you to absorb. I do not have enough time in the day to repeat it.

Mr. Binary wrote:I watched that documentary and loved it, but then I had drank some whisky and taken quite a few of valium. The one bit I remember though, is the bit where the narrator says that it is physically impossible for kerosene to burn hot enough to vaporise the metal that the engines were made of (titanium?). Any chemists here know if that's true (or know how to make aether...)?

ps. how come everyone on here (or a significant proportion) is so rude? It's kind of annoying. But then I am the sensitive type.

pps. I think most documentaries have music in them. Don't they?

People in the (northern) midwest seem to be more sarcastic and cynical than in warmer parts of the country.. It gets really cold, then it gets really warm for a few days, and then all the sudden it starts hailing on your ass. Some of us have to shovel out our driveways before we can go to work, or chisel ice off the windshield.. Summertime means construction everywhere.. We are just bitter.

The music is distracting in this documentary, because it is trying to be "cool". It shows what an "asshat" the person who made it is. If the director is unable to realize the vulgar irony of having party music as the soundtrack to people burning in jetfuel, then he is a douche. There are so many self contradicting elements in this film that it is hard to take it seriously. But, nobody really seems to have a clear answer as to how the towers really collapsed. At least that I can find.

Greg Szymanski wrote:One who supports the official account is Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT. He argues that the collapse occurred by the extreme heat from the fires, causing the loss of loading-bearing capacity on the structural frame.

Eagar points out the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength," or around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit. Critics claim his theory is flawed since the fires did not appear to be intense and widespread enough to reach such high temperatures.

Other experts supporting the official story claim the impact of the airplanes, not the heat, weakened the entire structural system of the towers, but critics contend the beams on floors 94-98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZY506A.html

I would reccomend this over that ridiculous movie -
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

greg wrote:Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

by Dave Heller

These are pretty flakey observations. You must be kidding?

Which flaky observations? The ones based on established laws of physics?

greg wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

greg wrote:Are people treating these "conspiracies" with the same scrutiny that kept them from accepting the facts in the first place, or is there a lot of irony here?

Are you asking me if I'm more willing to accept a conspiracy theory if it implicates people like the Bush family and Dick Cheney and Big Oil and the PNAC crowd and the MI5 and the Mossad and virtually every multinational corporation that runs on the business of war?

The answer is yes. I do not feel these are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt. Means and motive. Prior history- similar events on a smaller scale, giving confidence that the scheme would work on a larger scale.

Correct, these people are not trustworthy. However, they are not the people put to the task of finding out what happened.

Are they the people put to the task of suppressing the story of what really happened? Does it not worry you that the last door this story has to pass through is guarded by the upper echelon of our gov't and the mainstream media, one happy family of crooks who serve at the will of the war machine?

greg wrote:There are thousands of people with varying backgrounds who are. People who actually know what they are talking about (kerosene, implosions, dealing with ten thousand freaked out witnesses). It is easy to cherry-pick inconsistencies, and imagine an exciting conclusion.

I'm trying not to see inconsistencies that can be explained away. If I'm picking a cherry, who put the cherry there? Here's a short cherry to look at; the CVR and FDR from the jets that struck the towers. A NYC firefighter wrote that three of the four were recovered. He wrote it in a book. The claim was discussed in the Philadelphia Daily News. Here's a link:

http://web.archive.org/web/200410300239 ... 033802.htm

Is he lying, and if so, why? Who has more to hide from what might be learned from those boxes, the conspirators or a NYC firefighter?

greg wrote:I watched this when it was broadcasted, and read interviews with the original architect team (with same conclusions). Not that I learn everything from TV, but I'll take that word over techno-dude's "Take another look, see that white spot."

I watched the Nova broadcast, a number of times. I remain convinced that the fire was never hot enough and the steel was never weak enough unless there were charges.

Why are you jumping from the fire theory presented by Nova to "see that white spot?", which sounds like you want to discredit the 'missiles fired in advance of the planes' theories, which I reject? Leave that diversion for Bad Comrade, he has pwned it.

greg wrote:I hope that the mountain of mundane evidence can be interesting enough for you to absorb. I do not have enough time in the day to repeat it.

Nor should you. Nor do I, really, despite today's post count. I just tend to have a really strong reaction when there appears to be an attempt to bully someone off the board with insults. It was lame when it happened to Matthew or Humphrey Bear, too, but they can defend themselves or leave, their choice.

BadComrade wrote:Do you know how many -thousands- of planes were in the air that day? The hijackers turned off the transponders, which tell radar stations "I'm flight number blah blah blah" Without those transponders on, it was impossible to tell which plane was the hijacked one.

According to the Washington Post, only Flight 77 had its transponder turned off.
http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/ ... 091101.htm

Convenient that the hijackers followed their instructions perfectly only in the plane that turned back toward Virginia ( the plane with the second longest time in the air and the plane second most feasibly intercepted if NORAD wasn't misdirected ), but still, your statement is in error and should be modified; one transponder was turned off, not a multiple.

I just want to correct the Loose Change guys about one thing (of many).

This has really bugged me since I saw the movie because I am a giant WWII aviation nerd.. The plane that hit the Empire State Building in 1945 was a B-25. This is a twin engine, prop-driven WWII medium bomber. The accident happened in heavy cloud cover so the B-25 was probably going slightly less than 200mph.

A B-25 weighs 10 tons, a LOT less than a fully loaded 757 and had a lot less momentum than a fully loaded 757 going 500+mph. Google up some pics. You'll see that while still doing $1million worth of damage and killing 14 people, the Empire State Building suffered a lot less than the towers.

B-25...not B-52. HUGE difference there.

Retards these guys are.

The director of the movie says that he is dyslexic and accidentally transposed the digits. Yet he did not correct it in the movie.

B-25:
B-Model Specifications:
Length: 52' 11" (16.13 m)
Height: 15' 9" (4.80 m)
Wingspan: 67' 7" (20.60 m)
Gross Weight: 28460 lb

B-52:
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Heavy bomber
Contractor: Boeing Military Airplane Co.
Power plant: Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan
Thrust: Each engine up to 17,000 pounds
Length: 159 feet, 4 inches (48.5 meters)
Height: 40 feet, 8 inches (12.4 meters)
Wingspan: 185 feet (56.4 meters
Speed: 650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
Ceiling: 50,000 feet (15,151.5 meters
Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 488,000 pounds (219,600 kilograms)

757:
Length: 178 ft, 7 in (54.5 m)
Wingspan: 124 ft, 10 in (38.05 m)
Height: 44 ft, 6 in (13.6 m)
Weights
Empty: N/A
Maximum Takeoff: 272,500 lb (123,600 kg)

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/mitchell.htm:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/b757.pl