[asedra] Ed Asner on 9/11 - Building 7

[Korto]

The suggestion that for some reason you've got to melt the steel at 1800C before it collapses, like it's some kind of bloody ON/OFF switch is stupid. While she's probably never heard the expression "Hot short", the quality of metals to have reduced tensile strength when heated (aluminium for one has all the tensile strength of badly made putty when around 500C, as far as I remember mild steel tools shouldn't be taken over around 200C and high speed steel possibly 600C), there's also the simple blacksmithing fact, known for as long as we've had iron, that if you take steel over a certain temperature it will LOSE ITS TEMPER. The temperature needed for this depends upon the nature of the alloy (and I'm no expert here), but your quoted 1000C for an office fire should be absolutely ample.

I remember an appraisal of materials for a firemans POV, and it mentioned how steel will just buckle without warning (concrete would explode, bricks crumble). The only reliable material was solid hardwood, which would burn through and lose strength at a steady and known rate.

[ray245]

You can try showing her a documentary video done by actual professionals that actually explains how did the Towers collapse. Don't tell her that this is the definite truth, but tell her to consider whether the explanation given in the documentary is plausible.

Chances are, she would concede that there is an element of plausibility that you don't need a conspiracy to ensure that the towers would collapse.

[Broomstick]

"I am only responding to your forum’s replies because I want you to keep an open mind towards people who are truly looking for the TRUTH of 911.

While an open mind is good, you don't want it so open your brain falls out.

Why else would all of these professionals put their names and careers on the line?

Professional does not equal infallible.

Even if you entertain the pancake theory, many engineers estimate that it would have taken tower 7 at least another 40 seconds or more to collapse. The only way the building came down as quickly as it did is that the bottom floors were removed by use of some type of incendiary/controlled demolition. Engineers also agree that an office fire has NEVER been proven to melt steel. Under optimal conditions the highest temp you will get from an office fire is about 900 -1000 degrees and structural steel doesn’t even begin to melt until a min. of 1800 degrees is reached (How did it get so hot to melt the steel support columns of building 7??) Steel in building 7 also had fire proofing when it was originally built). Very strange indeed!!

1) You don't have to MELT steel for it to lose a substantial amount of its strength.
2) Tests conducted on beams using the fireproofing materials of the time of construction have demonstrated that large quantities of that fireproofing can be dislodged with a large impact – such as might occur from a jet hitting a building, a neighboring skyscraper collapsing, or debris from either hitting the building.
3) A structual collapse due to heated and weakened steel would have the same result as a controlled demolition on the integrity of the building in question.
Her primary error is in thinking the steel has to MELT. It doesn't. It just has to get hot enough to lose strength, and that occurs well below the melting point. A fact blacksmiths have been exploiting for a couple thousand years at this point.

Building 7 only sustained minor debris falling on it, it is ludicrous to suggest that building 7 collapsed because it had a “giant fucking building fall on it”. I actually laughed out loud over that one!!!

The debris that hit Building 7 are “minor” only relative to the size of the WTC and Building 7.

Here is a picture of some of the “minor” debris that hit Building 7:

If you look at it in relationship to the size of the building windows you can see that that steel beam is easily 3-4 stories tall. It's NOT a small chunk of anything! Calling it “minor” is ridiculous.

Supposedly on that day...there were flight exercises that screwed up the alert transmissions? To sum it up as easy as I can...it was something like all airspace is monitered, reported and patrolled and ANY aircraft in motion is marked..signalled and challenged if necessary. My friend's contributory argument would undoubtedly bring this up...I remember myself being a little shocked how coincidental this was...they said there were air exercises going on PRETENDING that there was a terrorist attack and the people on the ground were confused and kept asking..."is this part of the test...? is this actually real or are you fucking with us?".

Ridiculous.

First, there are massive swathes of US airspace that are not monitored, even today. “Monitoring” airspace requires infrastructure that has simply never been installed over most of North America (lots of Canadian airspace is unmonitored, too). There is simply too much airspace and not enough hardware and infrastructure to keep an eye on all of it.

Second, no, not all aircraft are marked. In fact, in some cases I have tried to get air traffic control services and didn't, because my stupid aircraft was too small and slow to be picked up by secondary radar. That is, in fact, why transponders were invented – to make airplanes more visible to air traffic control. If you turn off the transponder the airplane pretty much drops off secondary radar. Yes, ATC can switch to primary radar, which will pick up the aircraft... along with every other damn thing, including interference of various sorts and every flock of birds within range. At which point the poor controller has to pick out one particular blip among all the other clutter and blips (that is, other aircraft) in the area. This is why secondary radar was invented – to filter the information overload.

To top that off, over large areas of the US transponders are not required. Flip the switch to “off” while flying through one of those areas and the airplane just isn't monitored anymore. Doing so might be against policy and custom but it's not illegal.

Now, airlines do have requirements for transponders and contact with air traffic control due to both corporate policy and the particular airspace they travel through. However, airplanes with malfunctioning transponders are routinely asked to turn them off to avoid bad/distracting data at ATC (after which the pilots check in with altitude/airspeed/other information as requested by ATC to help monitor their flight). When a transponder stops sending the assumption is mechanical failure, not “hijack” because the overwhelming majority of the time it's a bad transponder and not a bunch of terrorists.

However, on a good weather day (and September 11, 2001 very much was a good weather day) only about 1 in 7 or 1 in 10 airplanes aloft are in the ATC system – the rest are flying about with no obligation for a transponder (except in high traffic areas) and zero obligation to speak with ATC at all.

So this notion that somehow all airspace is highly monitored, all aircraft tracked, and everyone positively identified and “challenged” by ATC is bullshit, completely and utterly. Once the transponder was turned off in the hijacked airplanes on 9/11 even switching to primary radar wouldn't have helped much, because suddenly the controller would be seeing 7 to 10 times as many blips as before. Good luck sorting that out!

And finally – yes, exercises of various sorts ARE conducted from time to time (the most recent ones I recall were military experiments in jamming/distorting GPS which had a lot of pilots pissed off at having to get the paper maps out again). However, sharp distinctions are made between TESTING and ACTUAL EMERGENCIES. This has to be the case – because aviation emergencies can happen at any time. This notion that people would be standing on the ground in disbelief and non-functional is, again, bullshit.

But let's clarify this a bit:

- There was certainly no notification of such an exercise at the time to civilian pilots at least – if there had been I would have been aware of it, being an active pilot at the time. It is, of course, possible the military was doing something and not telling the civilians, but such exercises are generally confined to military airspace, and during them civilians are typically told to stay the hell out of the area. (Civilians can always request transit through military airspace, and in most cases it's granted, but they don't have to be allowed permission to cross through it. If permission is denied traversing that airspace can be hazardous to the point of suicidal. Smart pilots don't do it, and even a lot of sort of stupid ones know better.) Such an exercise would NOT be conducted in airspace being used by commercial airliners.

The notion that a report of an actual emergency would be met with disbelief is ridiculous, given that emergency equipment is sent out for any suspected emergency, even those suspected of being false. I once almost triggered a crash response at South Bend, Indiana NOT because I reported an emergency but because I took off, could see the visibility was markedly less than reported, and asked the tower if I could turn around and land again. The controller repeatedly asked what was wrong and she seemed convinced that I was somehow covering up a serious problem. No, I really just changed my mind about proceeding shortly after take off. Anyone promoting the notion that an actual emergency would be ignored or disbelieved simply has no notion of what sort of hair trigger the emergency response for aviation possesses.

After the second aircraft impact my spouse turned on my aviation transceiver – basically, a portable back-up avionics package I used routinely for communications with ATC as well as navigation. He was listening when the “land all airplanes NOW!” order was broadcast. ATC didn't know what the fuck was going on when that first came through because – big surprise! - they were doing their jobs instead of watching TV so didn't know what was going on at the time. They broadcast it anyway, then got to helping everyone find a runway. Granted it's anecdotal, but the Other Half reported that for some time all ATC could do was state they didn't know what the emergency was, but all airspace over North America was shut down and everyone HAD to land RIGHT NOW and there were military aircraft intercepting anyone who didn't start making landing preparations. That's hardly a sign of an “exercise” or a planned drill.

(One of the local controllers at Gary Regional airport later told me that he found out what was going on when a PILOT informed him – the pilot had been using an old form of navigation utilizing the WGN radio signal from Chicago which, among other things, allows the pilot to hear AM radio in the cockpit. WGN was, of course, broadcasting news about the events in New York City and Washington, DC. I don't think people appreciate that most of the air traffic controllers on duty didn't find out what the hell was going on until AFTER they got off their shift, hours after everyone else knew. They were far too busy handling traffic to check the news themselves)

Closing the North American airspace (granted, the FAA didn't close Canadian airspace, but the Canadians did that themselves shortly after the US did) was completely unprecedented and certainly not in the regulation and rules. I don't see how it could be construed as part of a planned emergency exercise.

- Despite the unprecedented nature of the “land everyone NOW!” order, and the near-total lack of information beyond that available to both ATC and pilots at the time, everybody obeyed! People all across a continent cut short trips both casual and important and parked their aircraft, frequently at locations unfamiliar to them, often on runways shorter than normally permitted, in so many cases breaking normal regulations about minimum requirements and rules on diversion, for no other reason than air traffic control told them to do it, because there was an emergency. And ATC was telling to do it only because the official channels had ordered it, despite the fact ATC largely hadn't a fucking clue what was going on at the time, or why the order was given. That is totally inconsistent with this idea that people were dawdling, going “No, really, you're fucking joking about this emergency, right?”

In any event..the point the video made was that NO aircraft...especially multiple ones that were commercial passenger planes could just veer off for minutes...hours in some cases without a huge red flag going up saying "WTF?? Where are you going Flight number XXX"

In actual fact, most flights in the US aren't even required to file a flight plan or talk to ATC. But I'm going to assume that's talking about airlines which, yes, actually ARE required to file flight plans, IFR requests, and stay in contact with ATC.

If such an airplane deviates from the flight plan yes, it's noticed – but it's not a HUGE RED FLAG or a WTF? It's “Flight XXX, are you having a problem?” The assumption is malfunction, not hijack, because almost always it's a malfunction and not a hijacking or an emergency. ATC tapes have been released which clearly show that the first response of the controllers involved was first to attempt to contact the aircraft by radio and, when that wasn't effective, ask other airplanes nearby if they could make visual contact and/or get them on the radio.

Again, her assertion is at odds both with what I know as a pilot, as reported by my spouse, as related to me by ATC people I know, other pilots, and in contradiction to the actual tapes of the actual ATC people involved.

[FSTargetDrone]

You can try showing her a documentary video done by actual professionals that actually explains how did the Towers collapse. Don't tell her that this is the definite truth, but tell her to consider whether the explanation given in the documentary is plausible.

Nova - "Why The Towers Fell"

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

It seems that the fruitbat has been adequately deconstructed, but since JFF000's fruitbat pal was clearly referring to me, I felt I had to reply.

Selective points from my friend:

"I am only responding to your forum’s replies because I want you to keep an open mind towards people who are truly looking for the TRUTH of 911. Why else would all of these professionals put their names and careers on the line? What is to be gained? It’s easier for some to take the road less travelled…

I have to say that <specific poster...unmentioned by my choice..don't want a pissing match...>style does not reflect intelligence to me at all; it comes off as narrow minded and egotistical. The classic false dichotomy; unable to accept that there are grey areas….If you don’t have the whole story, then the rest of what you are saying must be misguided and false. This is not the approach of Architects and Engineers take at all, they focus on the FACTS that they believe to be true.

I'm sorry, did I just hear an Ad Hominem in there? Why yes, yes I did. The classic "Oh, that post was filled with profanity, ergo, whatever points it contains can be safely ignored" defense. Regardless of any points actually made in the post. And then the fruitbat employs the classic Appeal to Authority, and succeeds in getting it wrong.

Dear conspiracy theorist nutcase, sir or madam,

Were you an actual scientist or engineer (which, given that you are lumping in architects with engineers, you are probably not,) you would realize that your argument is fundamentally flawed. The conspiracy theorist video cherry-picks facts while discarding others. It has no apparent interest in seeking the actual root cause of the collapse of WTC 7 (root cause is engineerski jargon, by the way.) Instead, it starts out with a conclusion (EVIL GOVERNMENT CONSIPRACY THEORY!!!!111) and cherry-picks facts to support it. Actual scientists and engineers would examine all the data available (the fact that WTC 7 was severely damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the fact that WTC 7 caught fire, the fact that said fires were allowed to rage out of control because WTC 7 had been evacuated before the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, the fact that fire is proven to soften structural steel, the fact that office buildings are steel and concrete skeletons filled with highly flammable guts, and the fact that examining footage from all angles of WTC 7 shows a collapse consistent with a collapse in the direction of the structural damage sustained by having significant fractions of WTC 1 and 2 land on the building) and would derive a root cause that best fits the available data. Ergo, WTC 7 collapsed due to structural damage sustained during the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 aggravated by steel-softening fires allowed to burn unchecked because the NYFD had no desire to waste lives saving a building already known to be clear of survivors.

Furthermore, the conspiracy theory invokes the additional factors of A) who would plant the explosives. B) Why would they? C) How did this activity go unnoticed? D) How many people were involved, and in what ways?

As you can see, the conspiracy theory raises more questions than it answers; unlike the theory I've laid out. Engineers are firm believers in Occam's Razor.

Yours truly,

An Actual Engineer.

I have seen debates for the pancake effect many times and here is the gist of what I have learned…

Even if you entertain the pancake theory, many engineers estimate that it would have taken tower 7 at least another 40 seconds or more to collapse. The only way the building came down as quickly as it did is that the bottom floors were removed by use of some type of incendiary/controlled demolition.

Incendiary like . . . oh, I don't know, the lower levels of the building being on fire?

Engineers also agree that an office fire has NEVER been proven to melt steel. Under optimal conditions the highest temp you will get from an office fire is about 900 -1000 degrees and structural steel doesn’t even begin to melt until a min. of 1800 degrees is reached (How did it get so hot to melt the steel support columns of building 7??) Steel in building 7 also had fire proofing when it was originally built). Very strange indeed!!

Actual mechanical engineers will also tell you that the steel doesn't have to fucking melt before the mechanical properties it had over its designed temperature range are compromised. Structural steels are cast at specific temperature regimes to help achieve the desired microstructure (and thus, bulk properties.) Even if you don't melt the steel, if you keep the heat on it long enough, it begins to soften up. Again, the steel doesn't have to fucking melt. It just has to be weakened enough that it can no longer do the job of supporting its designed weight load.

Building 5 & 6 were the towers that were mostly damaged by the original collapsing tower and Building 7 only sustained minor debris falling on it, it is ludicrous to suggest that building 7 collapsed because it had a “giant fucking building fall on it”. I actually laughed out loud over that one!!!

Of course, the conspiracy nutbat ignored the linked graphic. Possibly because the profanity broke its little tiny mind. Firemen on the scene described a "twenty story hole" in the building and "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13." Fires were also observed burning, out-of-control, under the first portion of the building to actually collapse. A twenty story hole is not the result of sustaining "minor debris." Indeed, other buildings at identical distances to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 (such as the Verizon building) sustained substantial structural damage as a result of debris fall from the collapse of the twin towers.

It has to be revisited and revisited and the more you look the more you realize that nothing seems to add up. There are WAAAAYYY too many suspicious events that some people just refuse to hear because they fear being called a Nutcase. It’s so obvious that the official story of 911 and the explanation for the collapse of the towers as outlined by NIST are not the truth. How could anybody in their right mind not see that??"

The "official" story of 9/11 fits the observed evidence. The conspiracy theorist shithead story of 9/11 only makes sense if one cherry-picks evidence to suit the conspiracy theory and discards the rest. In other words, it directly contradicts the narrative told by the sum of all the evidence presented.

[Maelstrom]

Good luck trying to change your friend's mind. I've got a good buddy that's been into this 9/11 "Truther" nonsense for years, and it is truly annoying. It used to be inevitable, when hanging out drinking with him, that this topic would come up, and we'd go round and round in circles debating it. Now, I squash that shit before it begins, because his belief is rock solid. It's like debating a fundie, and nothing I can say, or show him, will shake his "faith".

Even if the technical/engineering aspects of the collapses were vague or uncertain (they are not), then these "Truthers" still have to contend with the human component. To truly believe that hundreds, if not thousands of people, somehow plotted, and carried out a plan of this magnitude, all under the radar, and with no exposure post-attack, is ludicrous. It would have required a veritable army of conspirators, with vastly varied backgrounds, working in perfect concert, to carry out the attacks as they occurred. Really? What was their motivation? Money? Ideology? How much money would you need deposited in your account, as a demolitions expert, to knowingly wire a commercial skyscraper, knowing that it would be brought down with thousands of people inside? Or maybe there were a select few individuals orchestrating things from behind the scenes, with everyone else operating without full knowledge of the goal? And what then afterwards? Assassinations for everybody? Totally makes sense. Couldn't have just been, you know, Al Quaida.

[Surlethe]

Here's a good analogy. The only way to play with modelling clay: you need to melt it first!

[LaCroix]

Just take a look at this diagram that every blacksmith and metal worker (tempering) can recall by rote:

Linked for size

You see the line at 724°C (P-S-K, the iron now glows red) - that's the magic line - it undergoes a phase change, recrystallizing as austenite. Keep it at this point, or go up to about 800°, and all effects by tempering are gone - a work step called annealing.

At that point, it usually has lost 60% of its yield stress (? did I get the right term? resistance against bending)

You can see that 1000° are enough to make a I-Beam bend like putty - for a fact I know that a 4 inch I-Bar at orange-yellow heat (~900-1000°C) can be twisted into a spiral by two men...

[CaptainChewbacca]

Didn't someone once work out how many people would need to be involved in a conspiracy to do a controlled demolition in under 2 months and come up with approximately 3500 people, not counting anyone WORKING in the building?

[Justforfun000]

Thank you all. If this isn't enough info to convince her something ISN'T up beyond the obvious accepted story then you're right...it'll be hopeless. Cheers. Thanks for putting my own uncertainty to rest as well. It's getting out of control lately with these conspiracies...it seems like no one believes the simple truth anymore.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Even if you entertain the pancake theory, many engineers estimate that it would have taken tower 7 at least another 40 seconds or more to collapse. The only way the building came down as quickly as it did is that the bottom floors were removed by use of some type of incendiary/controlled demolition. Engineers also agree that an office fire has NEVER been proven to melt steel. Under optimal conditions the highest temp you will get from an office fire is about 900 -1000 degrees and structural steel doesn’t even begin to melt until a min. of 1800 degrees is reached (How did it get so hot to melt the steel support columns of building 7??) Steel in building 7 also had fire proofing when it was originally built). Very strange indeed!!

Not at all. You don't need to melt steel to weaken it structurally. Ever seen medieval-style blacksmithing? They use a forge to heat metal until it's red hot for a reason: the metal is softer and easier to work when you beat it into shape with a hammer that way. Stresses that the metal could ignore all day at room temperature (like being hit with a hammer) cause permanent deformation when the metal is hot.

Heh interesting. I use to debate 9/11 conspiracy theorists all the time back when the conspiracy first came to be until about 2006. I just lost interest because they're like religious fundies. This is the perfect example here. Back in 2006 the argument was that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. Now, they've changed it to an office fire. They're wrong of course, but they rely on the difficulty of finding credible information on how hot the materials found in an office burn.

[Isolder74]

That's why the McCormick Center Fire is the nail in their coffin and why they always strive to try and make it not valid. Remember they always say 'no steel HIGH RISE?'

Why.

TRUSS ROOF
Mundane wood fire
25 mins to collapse.

"Never Trust A Truss!" Chicago Firefighters(just about every other one too)

Coffin nailed shall we have the funeral now or shall we keep talking on the dead man's chest?

PS does anyone want some cake?

[Simon_Jester]

Just take a look at this diagram that every blacksmith and metal worker (tempering) can recall by rote:

Linked for size

You see the line at 724°C (P-S-K, the iron now glows red) - that's the magic line - it undergoes a phase change, recrystallizing as austenite. Keep it at this point, or go up to about 800°, and all effects by tempering are gone - a work step called annealing.

At that point, it usually has lost 60% of its yield stress (? did I get the right term? resistance against bending)

You can see that 1000° are enough to make a I-Beam bend like putty - for a fact I know that a 4 inch I-Bar at orange-yellow heat (~900-1000°C) can be twisted into a spiral by two men...

That reminds me- during the American Civil War, forces staging commando raids had a lovely habit of prying up railroad tracks, heating the rails over a fire, and twisting them into spirals. They could do it in the field with nothing more than routinely portable tools, but the rails couldn't be worked back into shape without a foundry. Quite effective, and an illustration of just how easy it is to do this sort of thing.

[LaCroix]

That reminds me- during the American Civil War, forces staging commando raids had a lovely habit of prying up railroad tracks, heating the rails over a fire, and twisting them into spirals. They could do it in the field with nothing more than routinely portable tools, but the rails couldn't be worked back into shape without a foundry. Quite effective, and an illustration of just how easy it is to do this sort of thing.

The problem is that by twisting them, you are also stretching them. So even if you reheated and straightened them out on a portable anvil (which would take probably a whole day per rail, while you can heat and twist a couple in a long camp-fire within hours) the resulting rail would be too long, and portions of it would be so thin that anything higher than walking speed would derail the train if you just cut it to lenght.

Upsetting a thick piece of iron like a rail is impossible with field tools. Also, the hardening is shot to hell, so the rail would be squished by the rain rolling over it.

Clever guys...

Edit: Come to think of it, the hardening can be redone rather easily in field, so they really needed to twist them in order to destroy them...

Second edit: Now that's how to do it proper...

[FSTargetDrone]

Didn't someone once work out how many people would need to be involved in a conspiracy to do a controlled demolition in under 2 months and come up with approximately 3500 people, not counting anyone WORKING in the building?

And imagine keeping all of those people quiet. Never mind transporting the explosive material to the buildings unnoticed, somehow hiding it in the structure with absolutely no slip-ups or clues that unusual work was being done (even a night). And that leaves aside the idea of somehow incorporating any explosives during the construction of the building, on a job site crawling with thousands of workers who would somehow be unaware? Construction going on (necessarily) out in the open, where the work was doubtless going to be photographed or studied by numerous other people in neighboring buildings, or just passers-by.

Absurd.

[Isolder74]

This video is telling. Just watch the Truthers spin. Watch it's fun.




What is telling about this test is that they just made a puddle of the jet fuel in the open air and just lit it on fire. We see in the video itself, that not only can a jet fuel fire get hot enough to cause the damage, it can do so under conditions that Truthers constantly deny that it can possibly do so.

[Sky Captain]

If I were to start a conspiracy about 11 september attacks I would build it on a premise that some rogue branch in CIA/US government knew attacks will happen and maybe provided some help to terrorists to make sure the plot succeed and then just let the attacks happen to take political advantage later.

What most people don't get is WTC weren't just normal office fire where main structure of a building is undamaged when fire starts. In WTC structural integrity was degraded in a crash and then fire started that further weakened the already weakened structure. Fire alone probably wouldn't have brought the WTC down but fire together with structural damage from crash did.

Besides you don't even need a burning fuel to weaken a steel to a point of failure. An ordinary campfire burns hot enough to make steel red hot to a point it can be easily bent by hand. In typical office there is plenty of wood, plastics, paper and other garbage that can make nice hot fire.

[Logicomix]

Notice, also, how they repeat "controlled demolition" over and over and over. It's a classic propaganda tool. Repeat something enough, and it has a habit of sinking in.

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

...

Intelligence on Iraq's WMD

I find it hilarious that you call people who support the controlled demolition scenario "conspiracy nuts"; while it is people like you who suggest one big and extremely elaborate conspiracy between parties that lived and operated thousands of miles away from each-other.

What you're saying is that Osama conspired with Saudi & United Arab Emirates nationals who had received Pakistani funding and Al Qaeda training, all this while he was in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. And let us not forget that all these parties co-operated so successfully they managed to fool every Intel and national security agency in the USA.

So, according to you (and the Bush administration), Osama (while being in some back-water village in Afghanistan), the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Saudis, and the Pakistani ISI, all worked out and executed a FLAWLESS plan to attack the Pentagon and the WTC, while the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI were all taking a nap. And you have the balls to call the idea that WTC B7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, "nutty".

WTF man.

[Justforfun000]

Oh boy....speaking of heat..I can feel the flames coming...

[Kamakazie Sith]

I find it hilarious that you call people who support the controlled demolition scenario "conspiracy nuts"; while it is people like you who suggest one big and extremely elaborate conspiracy between parties that lived and operated thousands of miles away from each-other.

What you're saying is that Osama conspired with Saudi & United Arab Emirates nationals who had received Pakistani funding and Al Qaeda training, all this while he was in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. And let us not forget that all these parties co-operated so successfully they managed to fool every Intel and national security agency in the USA.

So, according to you (and the Bush administration), Osama (while being in some back-water village in Afghanistan), the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Saudis, and the Pakistani ISI, all worked out and executed a FLAWLESS plan to attack the Pentagon and the WTC, while the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI were all taking a nap. And you have the balls to call the idea that WTC B7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, "nutty".

WTF man.

Ever heard of technology. Like what you're using right now?

This is a common CT nut tactic - which is closely related to creationist tactics. Basically, he's drawing up what he believes took place and then is asking us to walk him through every single detail and if we're unable to connect B to C then we're wrong and they're right. Even though they can't connect any of their points. It's retarded.

Muslim extremists are not cavemen who just barely discovered how to create fire, mother fucker. Many of them are actually very well educated. Groups of humans working together are very good at coming up with plans and executing them using unconventional means.

[evilsoup]

Notice, also, how they repeat "controlled demolition" over and over and over. It's a classic propaganda tool. Repeat something enough, and it has a habit of sinking in.

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

We Don't Want the Smoking Gun to be a Mushroom Cloud

...

Intelligence on Iraq's WMD

If you want to argue that there was a conspiracy to bring about the invasion of Iraq, I suspect you'll find a fairly receptive audience here. But that does not imply that an American government conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I find it hilarious that you call people who support the controlled demolition scenario "conspiracy nuts"; while it is people like you who suggest one big and extremely elaborate conspiracy between parties that lived and operated thousands of miles away from each-other.

What you're saying is that Osama conspired with Saudi & United Arab Emirates nationals who had received Pakistani funding and Al Qaeda training, all this while he was in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. And let us not forget that all these parties co-operated so successfully they managed to fool every Intel and national security agency in the USA.

So, according to you (and the Bush administration), Osama (while being in some back-water village in Afghanistan), the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the Saudis, and the Pakistani ISI, all worked out and executed a FLAWLESS plan to attack the Pentagon and the WTC, while the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI were all taking a nap. And you have the balls to call the idea that WTC B7 was destroyed via controlled demolition, "nutty".

WTF man.

1. Al Qaeda had access to (then) modern communications, and I don't think anyone is claiming that Bin Laden personally oversaw the planning of the plane hijacks. You know he was the overall leader of the organization, right? He would have provided funding to many such cells. And who mentioned the ISI? The Taliban were never claimed to be involved with the attacks, Bush went after them for harbouring Bin Laden. The Saudies, at most, provided funding to Al Qaeda. So the actual story is 'some fundie muslims with some training from Al Qaeda camps got into America, got flight training and hijacked some planes', which is eminently believable.

2. Is it so incredible to think that the CIA could just be incompetent? Or that they didn't communicate properly with the FBI?

3. The attack wasn't flawless, you may have noticed that one of the four planes crashed in a field.

People are calling your 'controlled demolition' 'idea' nutty bullshit because that is what it is - anyone can look at the evidence presented here and come to the obvious conclusion. The entirety of your evidence against the mainstream story seems to be that the CIA=God and therefore nobody could have perpetrated a terrorist attack without their knowledge.

[K. A. Pital]

Tread carefully here. I carry a big gun which has "Logic" engraved on the barrel. Arguments and disagreements are allowed, obviously, but if there'd be no substance (so far I see none, except comparisons of 9/11 to the fake intelligence during the prelude to Iraq war, which are not an argument) - I'd flush this in seconds. I also advise everyone to refrain from dogpiling, because the other side of the barrel has "Shoot the dogs" on it.

[Terralthra]

What you're saying is that Osama conspired with Saudi & United Arab Emirates nationals who had received Pakistani funding and Al Qaeda training, all this while he was in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. And let us not forget that all these parties co-operated so successfully they managed to fool every Intel and national security agency in the USA.

I know, man, they fooled them so completely! I mean, if the FBI had actually suspected such an operation was being planned, they might have sent a memo to the President saying "Bin Ladin determined to strike in US," and further clarifying that there were "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Oops, they totally sent that memo to the President about a month before the attacks.

[Justforfun000]

I almost forgot about that plane that crashed...good point. Far from "flawless" at all. Even the Pentagon attack was a failure in a sense because it hit a very unoccupied and unimportant section. Now the "truthers" (and I just started hearing that term literally since yesterday now when they had them on the news..basically reporting them as being denialists..but a growing movement) are claiming that it's impossible for it to have been a plane that hit the Pentagon and show videos and after images to back it up.

After seeing their other 'evidence' dismantled..I really could care less what they think. I'm sure the official report has a plausible and truthful conclusion.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I find it interesting how it's somehow easier for some people to believe that demolition charges could survive over six hours of exposure to an uncontrolled fire before all detonating in perfect unison, than it is to believe that anyone could get anything past US intelligence. I had a much longer post typed up, but then I realised that everything I said in it, evilsoup beat me to it.

But seriously, I would like to hear someone give any explanation as to how the raging fucking inferno in Building 7 that was left uncontrolled for over six hours didn't set off or destroy the explosives or ignite the superthermite or whatever they're claiming was used in the "controlled demolition" that brought the building down.