+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks (/thread-364.html)
Pages:
1
2
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Taem - 10-27-2009
I have no idea why I'm posting this now instead of years ago. It has *always* bothered me that people - in general, and even here - don't believe there were explosions that caused the twin towers to fall when I saw it on the news live as it happened. I'm not talking conspiracy theory here to cover up the truth because I honestly don't care why the investigation teams failed to cite this when there is plenty of evidence supporting bombs blew up the structures causing the towers to implode downward in a controlled implosion. What I'm talking about is if anyone actually watched the news that day and heard what the reporters were saying, then how could they not realize that bombs are what caused the towers to fall? It's ludicrous what people will believe if it has an official logo on it - do you take your magic bullets with magic mushrooms too?
I searched on google for, "i heard explosions 9/11" today and saw several sites. This one in particular has video clips I remember watching: Link. All that was ever said from the investigation commission is that, "steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing." Alright, I'm fine with that. But why was there a third explosion which caused the first tower to fall? I know there is also quite a bit of conspiracy crap I read trying to find the original clips I saw that have physics majors conducting experiments on to-scale models of the towers showing they would not have fallen like they did - straight down on themselves; they weren't built to implode like that. But enough about the conspiracy stuff, I want to talk about what I know - what I saw with my own two eyes and heard with my own ears! I saw the explosions, I saw the news coverage of the smoke from the other explosions at the base of the towers. I know it happened. Why can't anybody see that? That's what really bothers me I guess. I mean, didn't anybody else watch the freekin news that day?
I know there was an explosion at the base of the towers which caused the towers to fall. I believe the 9/11 commission knows this too, but is not admitting it because it would show the failed security American had for some very important buildings pre-9/11. I still agree terrorists caused the entire thing - there is nothing I disagree with except for what caused the towers to fall in the first place, and only because, like I keep saying, I saw it play out and read the official report and they simply don't match.
I hope if there are any 9/11 survivors out there reading this that you don't take offense, because I absolutely do not intend to offend. This has been on my mind for a long time and I had to get it off of my chest because it has been bothering me for so long. Worst case is someone here points me to a link citing relevant information about the explosions that proves I'm wrong, so I can rest at ease.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Sir_Die_alot - 10-27-2009
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...conspiracy-4067
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - eppie - 10-27-2009
Quote:I hope if there are any 9/11 survivors out there reading this that you don't take offense, because I absolutely do not intend to offend. This has been on my mind for a long time and I had to get it off of my chest because it has been bothering me for so long. Worst case is someone here points me to a link citing relevant information about the explosions that proves I'm wrong, so I can rest at ease.
All I know is that blasting a building to bring it down takes some serious calculations. Something you can't do in a few hours. I don't believe that there were explosives used.
(not to mention the time it takes to place explosives)
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - --Pete - 10-27-2009
Hi,
I watched the second plane hit the tower in real time. I watched the live broadcast of the towers collapsing. I watched many of the replays over the following few days. I saw no indications of secondary explosions. As an expert in shock dynamics, I am very familiar with a number of processes involving detonations and demolitions. I saw no indications of those when the towers collapsed. From the evidence of the event as shown on the news and from the tests and analysis reported in the link given by Sir_Die_alot, I believe that the official story is true.
The link given by MEAT has a really crappy copy of the video. From it, I could almost argue that Godzilla tore the towers down -- the video is that poor and that pixelated. I couldn't find a better copy, so if someone else does, please post a link.
--Pete
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Jester - 10-27-2009
Quote:I know it happened. Why can't anybody see that? That's what really bothers me I guess. I mean, didn't anybody else watch the freekin news that day?From shortly after the first impact until both towers had hit the ground, my eyes were more or less glued to the news. (I particularly enjoy the memories from the home video clips before they deleted the audio, when you could hear people's "Holy S#$T" reactions.)
I have nothing even resembling expertise in how buildings collapse or implode or whatever else. But I don't recall seeing anything to suggest that the "official" narrative is false. I do not "know" it happened, but all the evidence and my own limited reasoning all point towards the standard version, and away from the conspiracy theory version.
-Jester
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - kandrathe - 10-28-2009
Quote:I watched the second plane hit the tower in real time. I watched the live broadcast of the towers collapsing. I watched many of the replays over the following few days. I saw no indications of secondary explosions.Ditto. I was getting ready for work watching the news when the first plane hit, and they broke the story. They were reporting a plane crash into one of the towers, and possibly thinking it was an accident. I remember when the 2nd plane hit the other tower saying out loud, "Ok, that was not an accident." So, I played hooky from heading into the office and watched the news until the towers collapsed. Then, after my tears had dried up, I went into the office for the last half of the day.
Quote: I believe that the official story is true.I agree. When the 1st tower began to fall, you can witness the pancaking beginning just under the impact point, which is consistent with the theory that the burning jet fuel weakened the girders leading to the collapse. Total collapse was inevitable once enough weight was in motion downward. I've read the post mortem analysis by the building engineers who understand how the building was constructed, and how it came apart. I did hear that there may have been some negligence due to limited amount of fire proofing given to the main structural girders. But, I have doubts that it would have saved the building given the amount of jet fuel burning in that enclosed space. Nuclear containment domes are designed to take an impact from a 747, not modern skyscrapers.
South Tower collapse slow motion
North Tower collapse (at the 2:54 min mark)
EDIT: One other point... When things this big begin to fail, I wouldn't doubt that there were large "explosion" like sounds as girders began to buckle under the unbalanced stresses. Even minutes before the actual collapse.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Lissa - 10-28-2009
Quote:http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/epis...conspiracy-4067
Picture 3 is not a bunker, that is a Nuclear Waste transportation cask. Those things are made to take crazy amounts of punishment without cracking open.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - --Pete - 10-28-2009
Hi,
Quote:Picture 3 is not a bunker, that is a Nuclear Waste transportation cask. Those things are made to take crazy amounts of punishment without cracking open.No reason why it can't be both. The people at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center probably figured it was cheaper to get a ready made container than to make their own. Although why the caption on the NG 9/11 site identifies it as a "detonation bunker for track sled" is beyond me. The pictures on the EMRTC site of the sled track facility don't show it. I've got no idea of what a "detonation bunker for track sled" even means -- unless their sled is somehow accelerated by explosives?
--Pete
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Occhidiangela - 10-28-2009
Quote:I have no idea why I'm posting this now instead of years ago.I have no idea why I dignify your foolishness with a reply.
Quote:I know there was an explosion at the base of the towers which caused the towers to fall.By this statement I know that you are an idiot.
Quote:It has *always* bothered me that people - in general, and even here - don't believe there were explosions that caused the twin towers to fall when I saw it on the news live as it happened.No, you didn't see explosions, you saw a building that was 90% air collapse because a 25 story apartment block fell on top of the rest of it. There were about 25 stories above the impact site. The steel beams and the building withstood the impact magnificently. Awesome engineering.
As the fire burned, the steel beams that made up the three dimensional lattice slowly got hot, hot enough to slightly change their mechanical properties. The tensile strength began to decrease,
EDUCATE YOURSELF ON STRESS STRAIN GRAPHS VERSUS TEMPERATURE FOR STEEL
Many of the vertical steel members buckled in an event called PLASTIC DEFORMATION. (What was once ductile is now brittle)
That plastic deformation was caused by heat and load, together, among other things.
When the main members failed, due to the thermal environment changing dramatically the load bearing capability of the steel beams -- a number of them already having failed at impatc, and the fire resistant coating no longer protecting the steal from THERMAL STRESS -- they embarked upon a clever little event that we engineers call
CATASTROPHIC FAILURE.
The dust? How much bloody stone and concrete and gypsum do you think is in an eighty or ninety story building? Ever heard of Sheetrock? Also, drop a bag of concrete on the ground from three feet up. When it breaks open, notice a dust cloud.
DUH!
It all hit ground from great height. So did some of the people who either jumped, or hadn't yet burned to death. And please don't start with any crap about 'greater than freefall speed' it will just make you look sillier.
MEAT, you are being an utter fool. You are falling prey to liars and charlatans, idiots like Griffin and Jones and Fetzer and Avery. You know DAMNED WELL who I am talking about, if you are spouting this despicable crap.
What are you, a charter member of Prison Planet? Stormfront? What I see you doing here is what the lying scum who have perpetrated this inane conspiracy theory call
Just Aksing Questions.
Well, I have a question for you. So I am just asking a question here:
What the hell did you do with your brain?
You can look up the term Controlled Demolition. You can find on the web dozens of examples of actual controlled demolitions that have taken place all over the place, done by qualified teams. The Towers didn't have those characteristisc, except to the
DELIBERATELY SELF DELUDED
You are engaging in willful ignorance. Our ancestors who did that ended up as sabre tooth chow.
An alum of my university, and a fellow Navy pilot, was murdered that day, in cold blood, along with too many others, at the Pentagon, while he flew his passengers and the complete scum who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 into that massive building.
The lying scum who are playing you
FOR AN UTTER FOOL
also contend that AA 77 didn't actually hit the Pentagon, or that a missile did, or about six other wrong and often contradictory lies about an A-3 Skywarrior were "what really happened." They got Rosie O'Donnel to sell their soap, and now they have you. Way to leap into the ditch with a pig.
That you fall for that rubbish places you in the class of people who PT Barnum made his fortune bilking.
Welcome to the world of the wilfully foolish, population far too large for my liking.
There's the interstate ... or is it a playground?
If you respond, you may have demonstrated that you can tell the difference.
Oh, yeah, maybe you ought to do what I did a few years ago.
Head over to NIST, they have a web site, and read their freakin' report. Yes, it has big words, and isn't just a few Twitter lines long, but it's fascinating reading and remarkable as an example of forensic investigation.
Or, you can keep being a fool played by charlatans.
Or go here, to Ryan Mackey's site:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
Occhi
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - DeeBye - 10-28-2009
Quote:Many of the vertical steel members buckled in an event called PLASTIC DEFORMATION.
The horizontal ones too -- they deformed and sagged enough to pull them away from their vertical supports, which were also deformed.
Really, this was the whole cause of the collapse. Take a straight section of a steel coat hangar and flex it a bit. It will return to the original "straitness" (assuming you don't apply too much force). That's called "elastic deformation", and is what load-bearing steel members in structures are carefully designed to withstand. Now add some heat to the coat hanger. Even a cigarette lighter for 30 seconds would probably do. Flex the hanger again with exact same force. It will make a permanent bend at the point where the heat was applied. That's "plastic deformation" due to heat, and is what happened in the WTC collapses.
The steel members in huge buildings are designed to withstand an enormous amount of force. One really has no idea until one gets into the math of it. A lower support member failing catastrophically is going to sound like a bomb went off. Multiple lower supports failing are going to sound like multiple bombs going off.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - --Pete - 10-28-2009
Hi,
Quote:A lower support member failing catastrophically is going to sound like a bomb went off. Multiple lower supports failing are going to sound like multiple bombs going off.Yes. Not to mention the sound of the horizontal members shearing off from the verticals. And about a million other things breaking, twisting, rupturing, etc. And circuits blowing out with sparks.
Since the fire was most intense toward the center of the building, the central supports yielded first, forming a sort of funnel that brought the building down almost vertically. Again, nothing surprising or mysterious about it. Yes, it does look somewhat like an intentional demolition. But a demolition of a structure that high would have required multiple levels at which the supports would have been cut, starting at the top center, working out toward the edges and then repeating the process on lower floors. The whole process carefully timed to the shock propagation through the steel structure and the rate of fall of debris from upper floors. Doing it with just a bottom floor set of charges is too dangerous for a building much over ten stories tall. Too much chance that one side will be just a bit stronger and cause the whole upper part to topple sideways.
--Pete
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Taem - 10-28-2009
Quote:A lower support member failing catastrophically is going to sound like a bomb went off. Multiple lower supports failing are going to sound like multiple bombs going off.
Quote:Yes. Not to mention the sound of the horizontal members shearing off from the verticals. And about a million other things breaking, twisting, rupturing, etc. And circuits blowing out with sparks.
Since the fire was most intense toward the center of the building, the central supports yielded first, forming a sort of funnel that brought the building down almost vertically. Again, nothing surprising or mysterious about it. Yes, it does look somewhat like an intentional demolition. But a demolition of a structure that high would have required multiple levels at which the supports would have been cut, starting at the top center, working out toward the edges and then repeating the process on lower floors. The whole process carefully timed to the shock propagation through the steel structure and the rate of fall of debris from upper floors. Doing it with just a bottom floor set of charges is too dangerous for a building much over ten stories tall. Too much chance that one side will be just a bit stronger and cause the whole upper part to topple sideways.
Yes, I read all of the official reports, but from what I remember, they just didn't add up with what I saw on television. For whatever reason, perhaps I was just ready to hear it now, what you are saying here makes a lot of sense to me. I can't thank you enough for setting my mind at ease; I knew I could find the intellectual diagnosis I was looking for here.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Taem - 10-28-2009
Quote:I have no idea why I dignify your foolishness with a reply.
Occhi, believe it or not, I appreciate your candor, and your reply. I can always count on you to make me think about what I am saying before posting - and after.
Quote:I know there was an explosion at the base of the towers which caused the towers to fall.
Quote:By this statement I know that you are an idiot.
Yes, are correct. I opened my big mouth stating something as factual when in fact I was making a hypothesis based on conjecture. Emphasis mine; I see my mistake.
Quote:
No, you didn't see explosions, you saw a building that was 90% air collapse because a 25 story apartment block fell on top of the rest of it. There were about 25 stories above the impact site. The steel beams and the building withstood the impact magnificently. Awesome engineering.
As the fire burned, the steel beams that made up the three dimensional lattice slowly got hot, hot enough to slightly change their mechanical properties. The tensile strength began to decrease,
EDUCATE YOURSELF ON STRESS STRAIN GRAPHS VERSUS TEMPERATURE FOR STEEL
Many of the vertical steel members buckled in an event called PLASTIC DEFORMATION. (What was once ductile is now brittle)
That plastic deformation was caused by heat and load, together, among other things.
When the main members failed, due to the thermal environment changing dramatically the load bearing capability of the steel beams -- a number of them already having failed at impatc, and the fire resistant coating no longer protecting the steal from THERMAL STRESS -- they embarked upon a clever little event that we engineers call
CATASTROPHIC FAILURE.
I understand what the 9/11 commission report said - I did read it.
Quote:[...]
It all hit ground from great height. So did some of the people who either jumped, or hadn't yet burned to death. And please don't start with any crap about 'greater than freefall speed' it will just make you look sillier.
What I was saying was I heard the explosion while watching live footage of the event before the first tower fell. So did the reporters, camera crew, and random people in the shot who all ducked when the explosion went off. I also saw the smoke rising from the bottom of the tower after this explosion. I never felt that any of this had been adequately explained by any investigation commission, however Deebee and Pete gave me an answer that I can live with.
Quote:MEAT, you are being an utter fool. You are falling prey to liars and charlatans, idiots like Griffin and Jones and Fetzer and Avery. You know DAMNED WELL who I am talking about, if you are spouting this despicable crap.
Occhi, I'll state it again, I know what I saw and heard - there is no point of contention here for me with that. It may surprise you to know that I do not read up on conspiracy theories about 9/11, so forgive me for not knowing who those men you mentioned are - I have no interest to read up on conspiracy theories. But this misunderstanding is all my fault because I should have excluded my opinion on why I thought that what I had seen and heard may have been omitted from the final report, and just posted the facts of what I saw and heard instead. I also should have excluded mention of the other web site I saw in which someone made the Twin Towers model topple over in a unique way, because this is someone elses theory, one that I used to support my claims which, as you pointed out Occhi, was foolish.
So to summarize, based solely on the facts of what I saw and heard, I felt no investigation team did justice to explain what I had witnessed, however the reply from Deebee and Pete have help to put my mind at ease.
Quote:[...]
An alum of my university, and a fellow Navy pilot, was murdered that day, in cold blood, along with too many others, at the Pentagon, while he flew his passengers and the complete scum who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 into that massive building.
I am sorry for your loss. I too am still angry at what these terrorists did. Please don't allow my inquiry to diminish your own experience in any way.
If you want to call me foolish, fine - the way I posed my initial response was foolish and I regret that. If I had stuck with the facts I knew instead of including theories, then this post might of been different. I'm not attacking you or calling the commission reporters liars - I felt that I had an authentic misunderstanding of the events that needed clarification.
Quote:also contend that AA 77 didn't actually hit the Pentagon, or that a missile did, or about six other wrong and often contradictory lies about an A-3 Skywarrior were "what really happened." They got Rosie O'Donnel to sell their soap, and now they have you. Way to leap into the ditch with a pig.
In the last part of my first post, I made the mistake of mentioning my opinion and because my opinion was not based on any fact, this seems to have caused a bit of confusion. I never meant to talk about conspiracies and I apologize for the misunderstanding this has caused. I only wanted to talk about what I saw and heard as fact and what that could have meant. I feel better about that now.
Quote:Head over to NIST, they have a web site, and read their freakin' report. Yes, it has big words, and isn't just a few Twitter lines long, but it's fascinating reading and remarkable as an example of forensic investigation.
Thanks.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - eppie - 10-28-2009
Quote:Occhi, believe it or not, I appreciate your candor, and your reply.
Thanks.
So do you have to call somebody an idiot or a fool before getting a reply here?
This is not setting a good precedent.
MEAT,
I won't attack you on what you have seen or heard (or think that you have seen or heard) but I just want to ask you;
What did you think that might have happened? After the planes crashed the buildings were rigged with explosives and demolished in order to have them collaps straight down?
How would you see that happening? Planning to demolish a building takes weeks, maybe longer, and putting in the charges on the right spots at least several days.
Because if you suggest (and I know that you didnt suggest this) that the buildings were rigged allready then you are just talking major conspiracy theory.
There is no way this could have been caused by anything else than those two airplanes
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Crusader - 10-28-2009
Tiiiiin foil hats! Get yer tiiiiiiin foil hats here! Tiiiiiiin foil hats! Only $5 each! Guaranteed protection from government mind-control! Tiiiiiiiiin Foil hats!
Seriously. The planes rammed the buildings (Big planes, let's not forget) and the exploding fuel and subsequent fire is enough to weaken a building from the 70's enough so the top floors will start collapsing straight down. Why doesn't the top tip over and does it look so controlled? Gravity and momentum. As soon as it starts tipping the massive pressure from above immediately snaps the metal as soon as it isn't perfectly vertical any more. Like a match can hold quite some weight, but bend it ever so slightly and it instantly snaps. Metal is no different. After this tiny tipping the rest of the momentum is vertical due to gravity. The WTC wasn't a tree with a side chopped out. It was a cardhouse with an anvil placed on top.
I've heard theories where rockets were fired at the building from the planes just second before impact. HOW PARANOID CAN YOU GET!?
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - kandrathe - 10-28-2009
I have some other questions...
1) About that grassy knoll...
2) Did the US *really* land on the moon?
3) Is Hoffa really buried in Giants Stadium.
4) Was Barry Obama really born in Kenya?
5) Area 51 -- Are there alien space craft kept there?
6) Was Princess Di assassinated by the Royal family or not?
7) Did the US or the Soviets biological warfare programs invent the AIDS virus?
8) Where is Elvis now?
9) Is David Icke right about the reptilian race that controls humanity?
Now, let me go get my hat on and listen to the answers...
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Klaus - 10-28-2009
Quote:I have some other questions...
1) About that grassy knoll...
It's a hill with some grass on it...
Quote:2) Did the US *really* land on the moon?
Yes
Quote:3) Is Hoffa really buried in Giants Stadium.
No, he's buried on the grassy knoll
Quote:4) Was Barry Obama really born in Kenya?
England, actually. He's a secret member of the royal family.
Quote:5) Area 51 -- Are there alien space craft kept there?
Yes, but there's more! See below.
Quote:6) Was Princess Di assassinated by the Royal family or not?
By Obama. It was phase 1 of his long-term plan to get elected.
Quote:7) Did the US or the Soviets biological warfare programs invent the AIDS virus?
No, Elvis did.
Quote:8) Where is Elvis now?
Area 51. He's an alien. Reptillian....
Quote:9) Is David Icke right about the reptilian race that controls humanity?
Elvis is their leader. He was almost outed by the Apollo landings.
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Occhidiangela - 10-30-2009
Quote:Occhi, believe it or not, I appreciate your candor, and your reply. I can always count on you to make me think about what I am saying before posting - and after.MEAT, thanks for that very calm response to my very heated post.
I've said all that I will say on the topic. Ryan Mackey collected a great deal of excellent material on this topic. He's a professional engineer.
Let me wipe a bit of the spittle off of your monitor, it's mine.;)
Occhi
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - [wcip]Angel - 10-30-2009
Grown up people solving their disputes like responsible adults. Would never have happened on any other site than the Lounge;)
On topic:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=sout...emb=0&aq=f#
There is something that has always bothered me about the 9/11 attacks - Rhydderch Hael - 10-30-2009
Quote:...2) Did the US *really* land on the moon? ...I sincerely hope not. There's no way the entire country could operate in a vacuum. :whistling: