New to the forum - well 3 days old - looking forward to fun debate

- I am willing to discuss any subject as long as it remains civil
- exceptions being anti-semetic, non-support of the soldiers (you can argue about the general military complex - but to minimize the fact that these men and women willingly lay down their lives for your country is just cowardly and sad)
- you get hostile ill just stop being a part of the conversation
-I will answer any question truthfully and to the best of my ability - i am willing to answer anything that i can.
- I do believe in the Official Story - and I have studied the evidence from both sides. Its my opinon - respect it - I will respect yours.
- I do also post at JREF so make of that what you will.

- my knowledge bio - i have 3 years active military experience and 2 more years total in hostile combat operations I am combat weapon trained. I am employed by a government (ahhh NWO Shill!!! :ph43r: ) - though doing what frankly is none of your business. i just disclose this as I dont want anyone to think i am hiding anything

thanks to those who have already welcomed me and I look forward to our discussions in the future! ;)

Digest:
I'm doing my part to welcome any new neighbors
I have no interest in trying to change your mind, as we're all grown adults here, and I have already been quite burned enough w/ pyramid schemes & organized religion to try and argue/persuade another to see things my way.

kudos to you for serving your country.

I have my doubts and questions around much posted here, but am absolutely convinced The Official Story is full of holes and driven by power, secrecy, hatred and greed.

happy debating.

Welcome digest. As long as you are civil and respectful, I think you will enjoy your debating here.

Welcome! I would like to provide some comments/answers for your statements...

Things do usually remain civil. Those who want nothing more than to argue become easy to spot, and subsequently, to avoid after a few hours here...

Right on! We have no business spreading hate of any kind.

As for the soldiers, I think you'll find that pretty much everyone in the "Truth Movement", which is anyone who has questions about 9/11, deeply respects the troops for being willing to die for us.

Please don't mistake our distrust of the commander in chief as a declaration of our distrust of the troops he commands. We believe that an evil man is commanding good men & women to do bad things. Most of us believe that the troops are good people, who simply haven't "awakened", or if they have, cannot escape the current battle they are engaged in for some time, due to the contracts they've signed.

I often ask "Who doesn't support the troops?"

Conversely, if we do criticize a general or a group of soldiers for doing something wrong, for instance, some of the occasions where innocent civilians have been killed, we only criticize their behavior in that particular incident, and we do not necessarily question their commitment to the USA, or their patriotism in general.

Good policy. We should all ignore those who inflame us.

A sign of a true "truth seeker".

Oh well. Just don't call us "9/11 deniers" and we'll be just fine. :)

Why do you post there? Even if I believed the official story I wouldn't set foot in that place...

cool.

/agree 100%

Because I believe the common sharing of ideas (including debate) is the basis of freedom and culture around the world. Therefore I have no problem sharing ideas with those who may agree or oppose me. B)

ok for the debate first question: if u believe in the official story then u believe that the 19 hijackers did it right? then answer me why some hijackers turn out to be alive and they never modified the actual list of the hijackers? plus mohamed atta went to strip clubs and snifed cocaine, those things arent allowed by is religion then why would he kill himself if he doesnt expected to go to the paradise? plus none of the hijackers had nothing to do with ossama. Please explain me what do u think of the hijackers and forgive my english lol

I dont believe any of the Hijackers are alive. they died when the planes blew up. Who or what do you think was flying the planes?

I have seen the same actions in like-persons in a similar senario.

They had interactions with KSM and he had contact with OBL - that is how a cell works.

No worries on your english its not my only language either.

It's good to see there are people interested in talking about the issue, not beating each other up or playing word games (my own pet peeve). I would like to know if there are any aspects of the Official Story which you find difficult to believe. I am neither a believer nor a skeptic... I live in "still considering" land. But after looking at the evidence, I just can't believe that the jet impact and fires caused the towers to collapse. But that doesn't automatically mean demolitions, either; there may be other variables. Anyway, the question I am getting at is, even if you don't agree with the Truthers' explanations, is there anything in the offical story that doesn't set quite right with you?

Digest here are some question for you.

What metal was pouring out of building 2 before it collapsed?

Where was the investigation to the missing 2.3 trillion in funds locaited at?

UL company said that the twin towers could take how many hits from planes and still stand? (707 where used in the test)

Do you know who John O'Neill is?

Have you looked over the flight manifest logs for people on board?

Have you looked at the flight list for take offs that day?

Who was the fire fighter to reach the 78th floor just prior to its collaps?

How long was there red hot mealted metal flowing underground at the WTC?

What was the temps of the fires by the offical story?

What is the temps needed to weaken the metal at the WTC?

By the offical story many KNEW the towers where going to fall. Why where there no warnings to the first responders on 9/11?

Thats all from me for now. Ask me some questions. Ill try to answer the best I can. Im just a old soldier asking questions. So what I know may not all the 100%.

hello to you also

I dont know for 100% 1. i never got a sample of that particular material to study. 2.I am not a metalurgist, are you? 3. I posted a idea about it here: Glowing Metal South Tower

i assume you mean the money discovered missing by Jim Minnery, i know what you want to hear the Office of Naval Intelligence, Budget/auditors who were located in the Pentagon which got hit.. however they were not the only ones investigated - in fact one of the only reasons they were involved was because the missing money was from the Naval fund.

Multiple. . also they were planing on a slow moving plane lost in the fog. Not the same as a 767 going 500+mph loaded with fuel.

yes - care to expound?

yes - care to expound?

yes - care to expound?

I believe you ment Firefighters ... Ed Nicholls, Chief Oreo Palmer, (Marshal?) Ron Bucca, J(something) Leavey - did i forget anyone?

I have no idea - you care to tell me? And if you only have the link to the youtube video about firemen talking about flowing lava dont bother.

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

They were trying to rescue people - That was their job - Just because they said the knew they were going to fall didnt mean they knew WHEN. Should they all just have stood outside and shrugged their shoulders?

Thanks for serving your country. hopefully i answered your questions well enough.

First thing that confuses me is why OBL = Iraq... And if it was a conspiracy why not just blame it on Saddam?

Second I feel the reponse of the American Defense forces (eg: Scrambled jets) was deplorable and hopefully fully rectified.

Lastly why was the 9/11 commission not complete and all encompassing (and no i dont think just because it wasnt does not = conspiracy)

not entirely true lol :P

lol i like the new pic better joe

thankyou, i think its good that people put themselves as there d/p because its nice to put faces to the names :)

This is respose to question 4. Speeds and fuel on each plane. 707 vs 767.

In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.

Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.

Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.

Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that at cruise speed, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 has been estimated to be 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 has been estimated to be 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Note that the speed of a projectile determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and the damage localized. This effect is



illustrated in the above graphic from the simulation of the crash of a Boeing 747 (maximum takeoff weight 875,000 lb, unloaded weight 670,200 lb, fuel capacity 57,285 gallons) with a steel framed building.

We are told that the "hijackers" wanted to cause maximum death and destruction, then why didn't they hijack Boeing 747s? Boeing 747s weigh more than twice as much, they can carry more than twice the fuel and travel faster than the Boeing 767. Consequently, Boeing 747s would have caused much more death and destruction than the 767s.

Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK). Hijacking aircraft from Boston, meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes, while still a long way from Manhattan. Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).

It is often claimed that the WTC was designed only to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at one of the nearby airports, and that since such aircraft would be low on fuel, only small jet fuel fires were envisaged. However, this is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are potentially fully laden with fuel.

Since the WTC towers were designed to handle extreme wind loading (140 mph hurricane force winds) they would survive the impact of a Boeing 707 (even one that was traveling at full speed) without adding any extra features to the design (above those already necessary to handle the wind loading). All that the designers would have to consider, is effect of a jet fuel fire from a fully fueled jet that crashed into one of the towers shortly after taking off from one of the local airports.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the much larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257_comment.php

Aron Russo's "America from Freedom to Fascism" is now available on bittorrent: "The Movie That Will Cause the Declaration of World-Wide Martial Law". One way or the other, the movie of Your Life. http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3519240

Dei Jurum Conventus

Ed Ward, MD; http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/arc_ward.htm
Independent writer/Media Liaison for The Price of Liberty; http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/


--------------------------------------------Also---------------------------------------------

Towers' collapse shocks engineers

"I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it." !!!
---said Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer, addressing a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, LAST WEEK, on problem of terrorism on high-rises, according to Chicago engineer Joseph Burns to the Chicago Tribune.

ALSO:
"It was designed around that eventuality [of a plane] to survive this kind of impact"
---Aaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center, talks exclusively to Jerusalem Post Radio on the World Trade Center collapse after the double attack.
http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx

Tuesday, 11 September 2001 19:50 (ET)

DETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A lead engineer who worked on New York's World Trade Center Towers expressed shock Tuesday that the 110-story landmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner.

Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, last week, Chicago engineer Joseph Burns told the Chicago Tribune.

Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it."

"Fire melts steel," Burns told the Tribune, speculating that the impact from the planes had damaged sprinkler systems in both towers. "You never know in an explosion like that whether they get cut off," Burns said. Because of the buildings' heights, engineers used tubular construction of tightly spaced steel columns. The floor trusses were built across to this central core.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.

Reason is the enemy of terror.
By Fintan Dunne, co-Editor


TWO WTC DESIGNERS SAY BUILDING DESIGNED FOR PLANE IMPACT


-------------------------------------------Also Watch this---------------------------------

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S2GIAlV3inM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hKhBzAh_eeA

And a little bit of humor

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ajh4iJR7e7g

And to answer your question about OBL. To blame someone tied to one country isnt cost effective. You need a terrorist group that can move from country to country and each new country he runs to you simply say look their helping terrorist invade that country. If you tie 9/11 with only one leader of one country you can only invade one country.

gald to hear back darion - I will try to provide my point to your you provided - of course these are all my interpitation and sould be treated as such - I am no scientist.

This is the actual quote from Robertson (bolding from me)

also here :

and here:

if you could link these i would gladly read them.

I'll assume these numbers are correct - i look them up later

/agree though i think you would be suprised at the amount of saftey factor fuel.

I looked for this and couldnt find a for sure answer so I'll assume your correct

You dismissing the damage caused by the impacts themselves. We both know those planes hitting did some damage.
robinson also says:

again:

yes but this wasnt taken into acount in the building - not to mention the loss of fire protection on the steel.
ie:

and again:

again see the quote from Robinson:

Like say the Madrid Building? i can can discuss that one as i have studied it if you would like. The Steel structure did indeed collapse only the concrete core remained.

Again as shown above they were not engineered to withdstand these impact. according to Robertson

Impact force/damage and fire cause steel to weaken and give way

again Robertson the designer disagrees with you.

When i look at any picture of the impact points - the last thing that comes to my mind is localized damage.

I have no idea - no one does - maybe they had only trained in the simulators on 767's

Maybe less security - or that was the airport they cased - again no one will ever know for certain.

Fallacy - as nothing like this had ever happened they would not have scrambled jet immediately - (ie: even after 9/11 Payne Stewarts plane)

I am just going with what the lead engineer says which is exactly:

and various others you can see above.

However they didnt as Robertson has said.

again they didnt as Robertson has said.

And many more experts agree that the planes and fire did indeed bring down the towers

In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257_comment.php

Aron Russo's "America from Freedom to Fascism" is now available on bittorrent: "The Movie That Will Cause the Declaration of World-Wide Martial Law". One way or the other, the movie of Your Life. http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3519240
I watch these and respond when i have time

I can provide the same amount of quotes form other professionals saying the opposite point - whos to say who is right or wrong.

thanks for your thoughts

The problem with these statements is they where made after 9/11. Where the offical story was already being pushed onto the nation as well as these people here. Most that disagreed with this statement in their field where affraid of getting fired. Many that made statements like "I was shocked to see the towers fall." Later gave statements like this "If you knew how the buildings where made its a shock to see them stand so long". Most where simply affraid for their jobs. Yes most (if not all) the researchers that still cling to their first statement are retired and no longer need to worry about being fired.

Um sorry no. The steel frame stayed in tact. However there where some areas where concrete fell. Still the main structure was solid. They even placed a crane on top for reconstruction (However I do not know if they reinforced the structure before placing the crane on it. Most likely yes) So saying that the concrete stayed where steel failed is not true. Sorry to say your wrong here.

I sure hope so. I didnt do the math on this. I got this from a airinotic lab.

Yes this is the offical account on the ammount of fuel in the planes that hit the twin towers.

Sorry no I didnt dismiss the damage coused by the impacts. It was covered by the video on bottom. Where the UL builders talked about it. (The video is prior to 9/11 I think)

Sorry the test where done at max speed. Debunkers keep trying to say the test where done as if the planes where lost in a fog. Sorry this is untrue. They tested the impact as a terror attack. Also there was a person inside UL (Cant remember his name. Im bad with names and spelling) that concluded the fireproofing would not come off from a impact before 1993 let alone after 1993. See the fireproofing was coated again after the 1993 bombing. After asking many questions about test and numbers that didnt add um he was fired from his office in UL. See asking to many questions can be bad for your job.

Sorry these where the numbers I gained from another page. You can also cross refrence them with UL page. The test where done at max speed for both types of planes.

Sorry the impact did do some damage. However experts have stated that the building did stableize itself. As for the fires. The offical story stated fires of up to 600-800%F. The thermal scope where able to pick this up from the helicoptor going around the building. Problem with that is the fires where uneven and constantly changing. Meaning there where never any fires in one spot long enough to weaken the steel. (I wish I had a link to that thermal footage now. Can anyone hook me up with that)

Again these statements where all made after the lie of 9/11 was pushed to the people. And if you wanted your jobs you would change your story to the offical one. Any person that went against the offical story where scared into changing their story from fear of being fired.

Again these statements where made after 9/11. Heres a challange for you. Find any expert with a stated comment on building types and fires before 9/11 that work with your theory.

Thanks for your time. Also thanks for not making this into a JREF's flames comment area.

I am always happy to have a civil sharing of ideas and opinions

I dont think there is a difference between Robertsons comments brfore or after 9/11 - we're just gonna have to disagree on that one - but no worry we still have more to chat about.

ill take a look for a comparison expert prior to 9/11 but as you'll have to agree we had no idea what such a event would do to a building - because such a attack had never happened.

Ill give you a better response to your statement either later tonight or this weekend - i am in the process of working on the NORAD tapes so you'll have to give me some time here.

thanks again for your civil approach to talking about our opinions on the events of that day.

Sofi

You can also look here for another link to Robertsons comments.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...pic=14477&st=50

Yes it is nice to type with someone that doesnt call me a "Un-american", "natzi lover", "retard" or worse. I get it a lot on myspace and youtube.

Heres a hint on that challange. Try looking up the 1993 bombing event in the WTC.
Yes there where no (Major) fires however they do talk about the construction and how it held up.

Remember this shit. Click, Bang, Jam "DAMIT" Pull back on the ejector. Click, Bang, Jam "DAM YOU" Try this again. Click, Bang, Jam "What is this one round M240 sniper shooting here.?"


I still have the M240 cd around my house someplace. I worked in the armory while my leg healing up for a while and that was the time we got our new M240's.

Clearly what we need to do, is find a (or a few) bored multi-billionaire(s), get them to build 2 towers that match the stats of the wtc buildings as much as possible. Then buy some Boeings that have the same fuel specs, and crash them into the towers. Do this a couple times. Measure the damage, the wreckage, the warping. And depending on what happens, we should then wire the same buildings up with some bombs and see what happens. And we should film it from multiple angles. I'm sure computer simulations can do this anyways, but computer simulations wouldn't be trusted 100 percent, and we would have to make this a fully privatized event, to be sure that the government does sneak some bombs in or something. We can do this at my house, everyone is invited, please bring brooms. I live in Canada, so it could be legal. :P