New 911 Truth video - Twin Towers

[mmmbop1976 1]

why can very few of us look at this objectively?

so the standard is if we don't agree with what is depicted in this video we didn't look at it objectively? who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

rather presumptuous aren't we? I was referring to the level of emotional response we are getting whenever someone talks (for and against) about conspiracy.

was the sarcasm really necessary?

so the standard is that if you perceive we displayed too much of an emotional response we didn't look at it objectively? i'm not the one being presumptious here. my point stands, who died and made you the arbiter of objectivity?

there are some things that are too clearly obvious. who died and made you the arbitrer of VJ?

really, so you can tell by a persons emotional reaction whether or not they looked at it objectively? give me a break

[Captain Ewok 1,857]

If possible lets try and make this topic a little more happy and reduce the personal attacks. Thank you.

[Fuzzness 2]

sorry Ewok

Edited September 28, 2006 by Fuzzness

[mmmbop1976 1]

okay, i take back everything i said and replace it with

[homesick_american 1]

sorry about the he/she thing *embarrased*

Don't sweat it.

doubting the orthodox view makes one a conspiracy theorist? I had no idea! Again, another great example of black and white.... I give up.

Not really, but it's not an unreasonable assumption.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm so tired of seeing 9/11 politicized, and used for political gain. It makes me sick. And now as many Americans have been killed in the "War on Terror" as died in 9/11. I don't think it does any service to those who died that day to send more people to die in their name.

What happened after the fact w/ Afghanistan & Iraq is a disgrace. After 9/11 Americans acted all 'shocked' that we had enemies who actually wanted to hurt us! That ignorance astounded me.

If my fiance didn't want to move here so badly I would've gladly stayed in England.

bringing freedom to oppressed people is a disgrace? i don't think so. ask the women in afghanistan that had to wear burkas everywhere if they think it's a disgrace

Freedom sure sounds great - but considering that the US has pulled troops out of front line with insurgents to quell ongoing chaos and sectarian violence in the capital - you have to ask what it means in a practical sense. If we are fighting to secure freedom, the decision not to deploy more troops (initially and now) is a rather questionable one IMO.

Similarly if Afghanistan is so free and stable, why is it still the worlds largest supplier of heroin. If the government aren't in control of that, who is?

freedom doesn't sound great, it is great. you confuse freedom with utopia. the people of iraq and afghanistan now have elected governments that the people can now approach with their concerns. our government is in control of this country, yet we still have drug producers, murders, and many other crimes, doesn't mean we don't have freedom.

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't utopia - no, but neither are they "free". If they are free why are Iraqi military and law enforcement officials participating in the sectarian violence. If they are "free" why are busloads of people turning up dead?

I'm not so sure you can compare the US' drug problem to that of Afghanistan, which is as I said is the world's largest heroin exporter. Either the govt are not in anything like full control of the country - or this is going on with their blessing.

[mmmbop1976 1]

I'm so tired of seeing 9/11 politicized, and used for political gain. It makes me sick. And now as many Americans have been killed in the "War on Terror" as died in 9/11. I don't think it does any service to those who died that day to send more people to die in their name.

What happened after the fact w/ Afghanistan & Iraq is a disgrace. After 9/11 Americans acted all 'shocked' that we had enemies who actually wanted to hurt us! That ignorance astounded me.

If my fiance didn't want to move here so badly I would've gladly stayed in England.

bringing freedom to oppressed people is a disgrace? i don't think so. ask the women in afghanistan that had to wear burkas everywhere if they think it's a disgrace

Freedom sure sounds great - but considering that the US has pulled troops out of front line with insurgents to quell ongoing chaos and sectarian violence in the capital - you have to ask what it means in a practical sense. If we are fighting to secure freedom, the decision not to deploy more troops (initially and now) is a rather questionable one IMO.

Similarly if Afghanistan is so free and stable, why is it still the worlds largest supplier of heroin. If the government aren't in control of that, who is?

freedom doesn't sound great, it is great. you confuse freedom with utopia. the people of iraq and afghanistan now have elected governments that the people can now approach with their concerns. our government is in control of this country, yet we still have drug producers, murders, and many other crimes, doesn't mean we don't have freedom.

Afghanistan and Iraq aren't utopia - no, but neither are they "free". If they are free why are Iraqi military and law enforcement officials participating in the sectarian violence. If they are "free" why are busloads of people turning up dead?

I'm not so sure you can compare the US' drug problem to that of Afghanistan, which is as I said is the world's largest heroin exporter. Either the govt are not in anything like full control of the country - or this is going on with their blessing.

they are free in the sense that the people have a say in their government now, with elections they can participate in. are their big problems there? yes, of course their is, but these are fledgeling democracies and it will take time for the people of those countries to fully figure out how to make their government more responsive to the peoples needs etc, etc...definetely a step in the right direction from what they had before. can you imagine what would happen to an iraqi if they had tried to openly protest against saddam when he was in power? or what would happen to a man in afghanistan if he shaved his beard against taliban law, or a woman if she went out without wearing a burka? what the united states is doing in that region is a good and noble thing, and as bad as the press may make things look over there right now, in the future we will look back on this time as a turning point to peace and democracy in that region.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You've not answered the question - a "legitimate" government in Kandahar has apparently done nothing (or does not have the power to do anything) about the massive heroin production operation in Afghanistan. That's a bit more than a "problem" for a fledgling democracy - this is a core source of funding for terrorism and organised crime. How can you have a legitimate government (and freedom) when this is going on?

Similarly how can you have a legitimate government in Iraq when military and law enforcment officials in that government are participating in sectarian killings?

[mmmbop1976 1]

You've not answered the question - a "legitimate" government in Kandahar has apparently done nothing (or does not have the power to do anything) about the massive heroin production operation in Afghanistan. That's a bit more than a "problem" for a fledgling democracy - this is a core source of funding for terrorism and organised crime. How can you have a legitimate government (and freedom) when this is going on?

Similarly how can you have a legitimate government in Iraq when military and law enforcment officials in that government are participating in sectarian killings?

i have not seen anything about iraq military and law enforcement participating in the sectarian killings. i see them taking over more and more of the countries security. i have found articles about militia doing those killings but not police or military. that's not to say that they don't, but i don't think you could call it widespread or sanctioned by the leaders. as far as afghanistan goes, i just heard a nato commander interviewed the other day, don't remember his name, but he says they are developing a plan to help the farmers move from an opium crop to legal crops that they can sell on the free market. personally i think things will turn the corner in iraq soon, and from what i see, the afghan government is functioning in that country, although i will admit, mostly just around kabul. but as the populace gets educated, as they get more experience governing, they will get control of their entire country. it will take time, but they are much better off than iraq imo.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iraq's Death Squads

Nearly 100 bodies found in two days in Baghdad

US patrols to weed out militias posing as Iraqi police

Good luck getting Afghanistan off heroin - 5 years after the invaion and virtually no progress has been made in putting a significant dent in the trade. Where do you think all that money goes? Its not into rebuilding Afganistans infrastructure...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

personally i think things will turn the corner in iraq soon...

Yeah, with the insurgency in it's last throes for the past year and a half or so, they certainly must turn a corner soon. Just not sure they're making the right turn...

[Heracles 417]

A number of few facts stood out in a documentary I watched. Yes the one that aired on the Discovery Channel that they 'conveniently' cut the original WTC designer from in this film...

• Steel was not properly fireproofed.
  
• Unconventional large office area increased burn temp due to more materials being available to burn.
  
• 2/3 of the support beams were taken out in north tower on various levels
  
• Building was design to resist 707 at LOW speed. not 767 at maximum velocity
  
• 10,000 gallons of fuel were spilled into building
  
• All columns on the east side of the south tower and east core were taken out
  
• Impact basically took out crucial areas of the south tower
  
• Due to other combustible materials in the building, office temperatures reached up to 2500 Celsius
  
• External columns bucked, hence the section above the impact leaned almost 45 degrees prior to collapsing.
  
• Once the critical point was past, rest of building failed, domino effect..
  

Edited September 29, 2006 by Infidel

[rclouse 0]

A number of few facts stood out in a documentary I watched. Yes the one that aired on the Discovery Channel that they 'conveniently' cut the original WTC designer from in this film...

• Steel was not properly fireproofed.
  
• Unconventional large office area increased burn temp due to more materials being available to burn.
  
• 2/3 of the support beams were taken out in north tower on various levels
  
• Building was design to resist 707 at LOW speed. not 767 at maximum velocity
  
• 10,000 gallons of fuel were spilled into building
  
• All columns on the east side of the south tower and east core were taken out
  
• Impact basically took out crucial areas of the south tower
  
• Due to other combustible materials in the building, office temperatures reached up to 2500 Celsius
  
• External columns bucked, hence the section above the impact leaned almost 45 degrees prior to collapsing.
  
• Once the critical point was past, rest of building failed, domino effect..
  

Amazing, this thread got back on topic.

I will have to disagree with you on your first point. The steel was properly fireproofed. It met the building codes of the time, and had a fire started on any floor and the sprinkler system failed, the building would not have collapsed. As you said, it was impacted by a 767 at maximum velocity, and that coating was stripped off. It is possible today to apply fire resistant coating to building steel to withstand something like that, but it's significantly more expensive. It wasn't something even remotely considered back then, and it's extremely sad that we have to consider such things today.

[homesick_american 1]

A number of few facts stood out in a documentary I watched. Yes the one that aired on the Discovery Channel that they 'conveniently' cut the original WTC designer from in this film...

• Steel was not properly fireproofed.
  
• Unconventional large office area increased burn temp due to more materials being available to burn.
  
• 2/3 of the support beams were taken out in north tower on various levels
  
• Building was design to resist 707 at LOW speed. not 767 at maximum velocity
  
• 10,000 gallons of fuel were spilled into building
  
• All columns on the east side of the south tower and east core were taken out
  
• Impact basically took out crucial areas of the south tower
  
• Due to other combustible materials in the building, office temperatures reached up to 2500 Celsius
  
• External columns bucked, hence the section above the impact leaned almost 45 degrees prior to collapsing.
  
• Once the critical point was past, rest of building failed, domino effect..
  

Amazing, this thread got back on topic.

I will have to disagree with you on your first point. The steel was properly fireproofed. It met the building codes of the time, and had a fire started on any floor and the sprinkler system failed, the building would not have collapsed. As you said, it was impacted by a 767 at maximum velocity, and that coating was stripped off. It is possible today to apply fire resistant coating to building steel to withstand something like that, but it's significantly more expensive. It wasn't something even remotely considered back then, and it's extremely sad that we have to consider such things today.

They did consider a plane accidentally hitting the building, as happened to the Empire State Building, but they assumed it would be a plane flying low and slow through low visibility conditions on its way to the airport...and the 707 was the biggest passenger plane when the building was designed, though not when it was built. I don't think the designers can in any way be faulted for what happened.

And you're right...the building met the codes of the day. There was no reason then to design a building to withstand what happened on 9/11.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The other main focus of 9/11 conspiracies is what hit the Pentagon. Conspiracy theorists insist it could not have been a 757, otherwise what happened to the pieces? Check this video out...it is a test of the concrete shielding used to surround nuclear reactors. An F4 Phantom was accelerated on a rail-track to 500 mph. It vaporizes on impact.

http://www.thedot.net/concreteplane1.wmv