Premier Rock Forum

A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11.

I like how this sentence momentarily but decidedly shifts the attention of the peice from "9/11 theories" to "Charlie Sheen's credibility."

There are many things in the world that would benefit from that juxtaposition.

IRAN

The third of Bush bugaboos, Iran, which is also the number two OPEC producer, was
also considering a move out of the dollar, and the arrival of US military forces next door
was doubtless designed to dissuade the Iranians from such thoughts. The Iranian
approach was less flamboyant and confrontational, but the threat to the dollar was there
none the less. Iranian sources were quoted in September 2002 as remarking that “Iran’s
proposal to receive payments for crude oil sales to Europe in euros instead of U.S. dollars
is based primarily on economics.” Still, an anti-US political animus could not be denied,
since dumping the dollar would be an “opportunity to hit back at the U.S. government,
which recently labelled it part of an ‘axis of evil.’’ As this proposal was considered, Iran
was moving currency assets out of the dollar anyway. Russian and China announced
during 2003 that they were doing the same thing.

VENEZUELA

And what of Venezuela, the number four producer of oil? Here the CIA, with the help of
Iran-contra veteran Otto Reich, attempted to overthrow President Chavez with a botched
coup in April 2002. Many saw this as a move to secure oil supplies in case the attack on
Iraq got messy. But a year before the coup, Venezuela’s ambassador to Washington,
Francisco Mieres-Lopez, apparently floated the idea of switching the posted price for
Venezuelan crude to the euro. Under Chavez, Venezuela also embarked on a policy of
direct barter deals for oil, which had been concluded with about a dozen Latin American
countries. In these cases the dollar was cut out of the oil transaction cycle, and the ability
of the Wall Street banks to skim off these transactions was eliminated. Venezuela had for
example a deal with Cuba under which Cuban doctors and health workers served in the
Venezuelan countryside, while Castro got his crude oil needs covered in return, thus
meeting a need that had been acute since the collapse of the USSR cut off oil deliveries to
Cuba from Soviet fields.

While I applaud every attempt at critical thinking & questioning of authority, I must vehimately disagree with what I just spent the past hour watching. It seems that all of these 'experts' look only at one factor concerning the collapse of the WTC buildings. One says the pancake theory is bogus (despite many firefighters who I've heard repeat like a mantra "don't trust the truss") while another says the fire couldn't have caused the steel to melt. Yet another says that the buildings would've survived an impact by a jetliner. I do realize that last one was from one of the building's designers/engineers, but is it at all possible that he may have been exaggerating slightly when he said they could withstand mulitple impacts? Pride in one's work is understandable, but constructing what at the time were the world's tallest buildings may lead one to make statements slightly beyond the scope of reality. Let's do keep in mind that the buildings did survive the inital impact of the planes.

Seems to me that the fires would indeed be very hot, even if they weren't hot enough to melt fire-proofed steel. From what I understand (and the video failed to address), the fireproofing was blown off of the steel at the impact of the jetliners at around 200 mph. This impact would also create substantial structural damage.

The beauty of these buildings definitely is in their construct. The exterior load-bearing walls (this I know to be fact from the very same man who the architects of this video have only selectively used sound-bites from) transferred weight to the surrounding areas for long enough to allow the death-toll to be significantly lower than they could have been.

While the 9/11 Commission (though I have not read it) ignores the 47 'support' beams in the middle of the building, it seems to me that these beams only serve to house elevators, stairwells and provide a minimal support to attach the floor opposite the exterior walls. I would again imagine that the impact of a jetliner at about 200 mph would serve to create substantial structural damage to these at the point of impact and the surrounding areas.

It is my belief, as a layman with a superficial education in physics and engineering, that combining all of these factors would cause a 110 story building to collapse onto itself. The initial impact of the planes resulting in catastrophic structural damage to the surrounding areas, coupled with an uncontrolled intense fire at and around the surrounding sites, coupled with an hour (for the south tower which was hit on a corner of the lower portion- ever played Jenga?) and about an hour and a half (for the north tower which was hit dead-on closer to the top) brought these towers down. They didn't take 100 seconds or 60 seconds or 48 seconds for the simple fact that as weight increases on top of each floor, so does the speed of collapse. Simply try to hold one phonebook & then have a friend throw two on top of it. Quickly have another friend throw three on top of those three. Repeat ad naseum & I believe you'll find just how quickly exponential weight increases cause your arms to fail. The exterior load-bearing walls become detached from the floors (notice WTC 1's exterior still standing tall moments after the rest of the building falls to ruins) and begin to fall outward at different rates than the rest. This is what causes what one of these purported 'experts' calls clear evidence of explosive charges. The blowouts you see as WTC 1 begins to collapse is the force of air being blown out the sides of the building (there's nowhere else for it to go!) as the building collapses upon itself. The extreme weight of all of this 110 story building crashing in upon itself as well as earth would explain the concrete being turned to dust. Noting how the buildings were constructed piecemeal on the exterior would explain why they were in convenient little pieces that could be easily handled upon falling apart; keeping in mind that by & large, they did fall away from a majority of the wreckage. This same weight & the resulting impact upon the area in which it all fell would severely damage the foundation and supports for WTC 7. The fires do seem small in that building, but we don't really know how high, low or deep they truly go. I am sure though, that these fires wouldn't have helped to keep the building standing. I believe that the owner of the WTC site was referring to pulling the building in the sense that keeping firefighters who weren't confident they could contain the fires on a site that had already witnessed so much carnage wouldn't be worthy of putting those firefighters at additional risk. It seems to me that he may have misspoke or gave the wrong impression.

I do pride myself in having a pretty good nose for bullshit (the ol' bullshit detector went off big-time when Bush decided to send the troops over to Iraq- not to mention right off the bat when he was "elected" in 2000), but I'm not registering anything on this. It seems to me that this time, the simplest & most logical solution is the correct one. I do believe that our current administration is far too lazy & incompetent to put together anything this involved, provided this is what is being implied by the video.

I am sorry to take up so much of your time with this response (provided you actually bothered to read through the entire entry), but I just spent an hour of my life watching & analyzing this video & enjoy details. I do wonder however, what, if any, agenda any of these purported 'experts' subscribe to and/or are pushing.

INDONESIA

Pertamina, the Indonesia oil giant, showed every sign of jumping on the bandwagon.
According to a Jakarta paper, in April 2003, “Pertamina…dropped a bombshell….. It’s
considering dropping the US dollar for the euro in its oil and gas trades.” The paper
pointed to the “major implications for the world’s biggest economy.” (“Indonesia May
Dump Dollar, Rest of Asia Too?” Jakarta Post, April 22, 2003) In the same issue, two
economists, Nur Azis and Jason Meade, from the Center for Indonesian Reform, Jakarta,
urged that Indonesia cast off its dollar dependence. They argued that the dollar would
“remain weak over the next decade at least, for a number of reasons.”

It seems to me that the theorists are lumping togethera lot of things that don't help each other, are of varying degrees of seriousness, and generally undermine themselves by linking them in the minds of the public.

For example, the cruise missile at the pentagon thing, or the bombs in the towers thing? Not only is the evidence on the unofficial side weak, it's also unimportant, because the question that would actually have impact is "Whodunnit." It also gives foes a really easy way to slam conspiracy theorists and undermines the credibility of the whole project.

Cut the fat!

MALAYSIA

The former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamed, was perhaps the most
outspoken against the dollar. He repeatedly called on oppressed Arabs to turn away from
suicide bombing, and fight the US-UK combine with the far more potent weapon of
dumping the dollar in favor of the euro. Mahatir was blunt about the need to replace the
world dollar standard. In early 2003, Mahatir told a group of reporters that the
international community needed to be encouraged to use other currencies or even gold as
the benchmark in international trade. This was because the domination of the U.S. dollar
in global transactions was distorting the world’s economy. Mahatir suggested that the
Euro, yen, or even gold should be used for transactions. “We should be given the choice
to use whatever currency that we want,” he said at a meeting with 31 foreign editors and
senior journalists. He pointed to the greater danger of manipulation when international
business is all conducted in one nation’s currency. “For the purpose of trade, we
shouldn’t say that oil should be quoted only in U.S. dollars. Today, the oil price has gone
up, but the value of the U.S. dollar has gone down, something that the people do not point
out,” he added. “The oil price today was not actually US $36 if this was compared with
the value of the dollar a year or three years ago.” Mahatir said he had read an article
which pointed out that the United States was actually living on borrowed money and that
it always faced a huge deficit. Despite that, he said, the U.S. economy continued growing
at a tremendous rate for the past 10 years while Japan, which had made a lot of money
and had very healthy reserves, was facing economic problems. “This is a contradiction.
Why is this happening? It is simply because we are giving value to the U.S. dollar which
it doesn’t really have. There is nothing to back the U.S. dollar other than people’s belief
in it.” (The Star, February 28, 2003)

Later in 2003, Mahatir , noting the fall of the dollar
against the euro, told the Nikkei Forum in Tokyo: “The U.S. dollar is not a stable
currency at all. We have to think of some other ways of determining exchange rates. We
need to rethink whether we can depend on the U.S. dollar or not. Initially yes, we have to
depend on the U.S. dollar, but we should move away from the U.S. dollar.” (The Edge
Daily, June 6, 2003)

I largely agree with Antero here (although I don't think you need the criminal in order to investigate the crime).
Sure there is no central command but if some body or group of 9/11 cynics could observe and seperate the reasonable anomolies and suggestions from the more peculiar ones, and condemn those more questionable theories, then the phenomonon as a whole would hold more water and such an organisation would, perhaps, be taken more seriously.
This is why I suggested you shouldn't direct people toward the Loose Change video.

clocker bob wrote:

cwiko wrote:While I applaud every attempt at critical thinking & questioning of authority, I must vehimately disagree with what I just spent the past hour watching. It seems that all of these 'experts' look only at one factor concerning the collapse of the WTC buildings.

clocker bob wrote: Because a single expert didn't cover the fire, the plane impacts and the collapse of the towers, you vehemently disagree with the sum of their individual theories?

I realize that my original point here was a bit weak, but I was just trying to point out that the pieces of the puzzle they all bring to the table don't seem to fit together very well for me. And thank you for the correct spelling of 'vehemently', it didn't look right to me in the first place.

cwiko wrote:One says the pancake theory is bogus (despite many firefighters who I've heard repeat like a mantra "don't trust the truss")

clocker bob wrote: Firemen have seen individual floors collapse above them when a truss fails- that's a long way from saying that firemen ever expected 110 stories of trusses to collapse in an orderly series, pulling down 4 inch thick core columns and elevator shafts at the same rate. Firemen do not avoid entering steel skyscrapers for fear the building will collapse around them- didn't before 9/11, didn't on 9/11, don't after 9/11. If the truss melting pancake theory was so bulletproof, why did the NOVA special fail to address the core columns?

Of course they didn't expect 110 stories to collapse, orderly series or not. No one had been confronted with the variables surrounding these fires before: impact of a plane fully-laden with fuel for a cross-country flight, an impact of 200 mph and an hour or so of uncontrolled burn. It is impossible to tell at what rate the core columns fell during the collapse, as there is thick smoke & dust obscuring where the towers had been standing for several moments immediately following the collapse. You are correct, firemen do not avoid entering burning buildings, truss or no truss system...this is their job & they are very brave for doing it. I can't speak for the lack of info on the NOVA special, as I wasn't involved in putting it together. Perhaps your question would be better answered by a producer of this special.

cwiko wrote:while another says the fire couldn't have caused the steel to melt.

clocker bob wrote: Simple math. Hydrocarbon fires do not approach the temperature required to significantly weaken the quality of steel used in those towers, not even if the fires are ignited by jet fuel. The fires were burning out pre-collapse. People were standing in the holes made by the planes, and firemen and tenants were in stairwells above and below the floors impacted by the jets. There was no raging inferno in those buildings, there were pockets of fire.

When structural steel is damaged (as by a jet flying into it at around 200 mph), I have to imagine (given properties exhibited by other materials when weakened) that this may have made the steel more susceptible to the flames. The steel was weakened. I believe dismissing the fires altogether is a mistake...there is no way these fires would have helped these buildings to stay standing. I've seen much video of this tragic event, and not once have I seen evidence of the fires burning themselves out or people standing in the holes made by the planes. I do agree that firemen and tenants were in stairwells above and below the floors impacted by the jets (this is possible by the construct of the interior of the building's stairwells shafts). I didn't mean to imply that the entire interior of the buildings were ablaze, but it seems clear to me that much of the impacted areas were & some surrounding areas of the interior core were as well.

cwiko wrote:Yet another says that the buildings would've survived an impact by a jetliner. I do realize that last one was from one of the building's designers/engineers, but is it at all possible that he may have been exaggerating slightly when he said they could withstand mulitple impacts?

clocker bob wrote: What multiple impacts? One plane per tower. It's not some exaggerated boasting by the building's architects that they would absorb a plane's impact- they did, without flinching. You can't knock down steel syscrapers with a flying tin can, speed is irrelevant.

The WTC designer/engineer said that they could withstand mulitple aircraft impacts. This may not have been in this video, but he HAS said this in other video I have seen of him. Flying tin can full of jet fuel. Besides...a flying tin can?? Have you ever tried to lift a plane? Pretty fucking heavy. It's only the laws of physics (lift vs. drag plus velocity) that allows a plane to fly. I believe the assumption of the flying tin can is an abhorrent over-simplification.

cwiko wrote: Pride in one's work is understandable, but constructing what at the time were the world's tallest buildings may lead one to make statements slightly beyond the scope of reality. Let's do keep in mind that the buildings did survive the inital impact of the planes.

clocker bob wrote: Well, yeah. Why are you telling us to keep it in mind? We all saw it.

Just throwing a bone is all. Perhaps I should have prefaced that with, 'That said...'

cwiko wrote:]From what I understand (and the video failed to address), the fireproofing was blown off of the steel at the impact of the jetliners at around 200 mph. This impact would also create substantial structural damage.

clocker bob wrote: If fireproofing was blown off the steel ( unproven ), bare steel remains, steel that cannot be melted by a hydrocarbon fire. How do you explain the fractured steel on the other floors without a plane impact and without fire?

On the contrary, it was proven that the fireproofing had been blown off. Either that or it was burned off (but I'm sure if that contention was made, we'd have some stats of showing that the fires weren't hot enough to burn the fireproofing off) as there was no fire-proof covered steel at the site. I might also argue that the fractured steel on the other floors was caused by the impact of the jet. From what I have found, much of the glass of the buildings was blown out at the impact. Why not jump on this as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy, too?

clocker bob wrote: I'm stopping here, not because I think your questions aren't worth discussing, but because everything I might say here has been said before in the existing 9/11 threads.

Thank you for remaining civil during this whole discourse, as it seems that people nowadays can't even fucking discuss the weather without jumping at each other's throats. I really wish you would address whether or not you think this administration would really be capable of putting together something of this magnitude & not get caught. I personally think they are far too inept to accomplish such a thing.

Not sure how to put a link in to another page in the forum but in the Market Warning in the 9/11 thread around pages 4 and 5 there is much healthy argument around the incompetence or not of regime.