Hijexx wrote:
] Also of note is the antenna. It was 352 feet long, weighing
] 353 tons. If you notice watching the collapse video here:
]
] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_1
] st24.mpg
]
] The antenna begins it's collapse before any other part of the
] building. This indicates the core failed above the impact
] floor first (the antenna's weight was primarily supported by
] the core.) A few moments later the collaps starts to manifest
] in the top floors, then the impact floor.

I suggest everyone that’s starting to think "hey, this guy is onto something here!" take a closer look at the video. Play it in Quicktime or something that lets you drag frame by frame forward AND reverse. The Antenna DOES NOT start to collapse first. it starts to collapse in perfect tandem with the top of the roof. And the entire top of the tower collapses at or just above the entry point of the airplane - where the fire would be burning hottest.

] "Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center
] suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both
] towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The
] collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a
] chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said
] Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
] Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on
] the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade
] Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings
] that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Goes to show you... no matter how pie-in-the-sky your conspiracy theory is... you'll find an "expert witness" that will support you and your bad data. What do you want to bet this crack-pot has a book and/or tv show "9-11 - what the government doesn’t want you to know!" in the works??

The “moon landing hoax” isn’t bad enough. Someone has to take the worst tragedy our country has ever seen and try to make a buck off of it. Sad. -LB

Acidus wrote:
] An Attempt to Uncover the Truth About September 11th,
] 2001
]
] [snip]
]
] A facinating read (been at it over 2 hours now). While some of
] the info it presents I take with a grain of salt, the
] doucmentation on this website is superb, and very well
] written.

It's not superb, and it's not well-written. It's conspiracy-theorist garbage. I could start at the top paragraph of the site and work my way down, debunking every few sentences, but I'm not going to waste my time.

Just because someone says, "No one investigated this," does not mean it's true. Investigations *were* done, in excruciating detail.

This feels like more election year garbage to me. Give this guy enough rope, and he'll try to make some sort of case that Bush ordered the 9/11 attack, or that the towers never really collapsed, and it was all just Hollywood special effects.

He's trying to rewrite history, like those people that try to make the case that the Holocaust never happened, because they don't want to believe that it happened. But it *did* happen, and it really was horrible.

9/11 *did* happen, and it happened the way that you know it happened. Don't fall for this conspiracy crap. Feel free to do your own research though, and convince yourself of the truth. Because a generation from now, two generations from now, and more, there are going to be more people who haven't even been born yet, trying to claim that 9/11 never really happened. Because they just won't want to believe that something that bad *could* have happened.

If there's any one detail from the site that you really want to argue, fine, bring it on. I've done enough of my own research on this that I'm confident of the truth. *I* can tell from a glance that the site is garbage, but if you want help debunking, fine, let me know.

] He's trying to rewrite history, like those people that try to
] make the case that the Holocaust never happened, because they
] don't want to believe that it happened. But it *did* happen,
] and it really was horrible.

As I said, I read this site with a grain of salt. A yes it is horrible thing that happened. Do I believe the conspriancy nonsense? No, of course not, its utterly retarded. Do I think a ray gun took down the towers? no. Do I find the information about steel and fire temperatures interesting, certainly.

It is a well written and documented website. I like the layout, it has alot of information (or disinformation if you like), a lot of sources (who may or may not be morons), and everything is nicely cross-referenced. They present there case fairly well, and I can admire that.

My meme was not an endosement of the facts or what you view as a misrepresentation of information on the site. Compared to other conspircy/ufo/craziness sites out there (ie http://www.crystalinks.com/ ) this was of nice quality, and I enjoyed reading it.

Elonka wrote:

] If there's any one detail from the site that you really want
] to argue, fine, bring it on. I've done enough of my own
] research on this that I'm confident of the truth. *I* can tell
] from a glance that the site is garbage, but if you want help
] debunking, fine, let me know.

Laughing Boy built a straw man arguement to attack. LB, the guy I quoted from the newspaper later retracted the statement. It was enlightening because of the retraction a few days later. Those first words though, that was an initial response from someone who dealt with demolitions. From day one, people had independent impressions and ideas about the structural failures.

Elonka has built a similar straw man and attacked it. No one who seriously ponders 9/11 is arguing that it did not happen. That would be as foolish (as Elonka correctly states) as saying the Holocaust did not happen.

It's obvious though, that this thread has generated some interest and some emotion. That's because this is an important issue that people still care about.

Many people question the official accounting. I am one of them. I believe the WTC site should have been more thoroughly investigated before the evidence was destroyed (or "recycled" if you prefer a different term.)

I've tracked this issue since it happened. I haven't kept a good journal, but there were articles I'd catch about the hasty cleanup. The site quotes one:

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." -- NY Daily News 04/16/02.

This was a common theme with some victims' families, that there was no deep effort to investigate all possibilities. I understand that FEMA headed an investigation. Out of the scrap they picked through, they've allowed 146 pieces of steel to be kept for future study. Some families dare to utter the words "white wash" and "cover up."

Back to the site that I meme'd, I don't agree with everything there. The author is in the camp of people that believe whatever hit the Pentagon was not a plane. I believe it was a plane. There were too many eye witnesses that saw a plane. But also, in those eye witness accounts, (also detailed on the site) many people mention seeing a C-130 shadowing the airliner as it approached the Pentagon, and circling around shortly after it happened. It's those little insights that start to add up over time. It's why I like sites like these.

This site has led me to other pieces of information, such as the purpo... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ]

Hijexx wrote:
]
] Laughing Boy built a straw man arguement to attack.

No - you've built the straw man. I merely brought the matches to burn it down.

] LB, the
] guy I quoted from the newspaper later retracted the statement.

You should have illistrated that little detail in your meme then.

] It was enlightening because of the retraction a few days
] later.

Why is it "enlightening"? "Hey I wish to retract my comment that the holocaust never happened." How does someones retractment of their statement bolster your questioning of the official account?

] Those first words though, that was an initial response
] from someone who dealt with demolitions. From day one, people
] had independent impressions and ideas about the structural
] failures.

Well, I'm no demolitions expert, yet I can clearly see from watching the video there is NO evidence of any explosives used to bring it down. The entire top of the north tower collapses all at once and it all happens at or above the point of entry of the aircraft.

] Many people question the official accounting. I am one of
] them.

Exactly what part of what happened on 9-11 do you not agree with? That an airliner crashing into a sky scraper can't produce a hot enough fire to soften the steel superstructure and cause it to collapse on itself? You question "why didn't the 1975 fire, set on the 11th floor, which spread to 6 other floors and burned for 3 hours, cause a collapse?" Gee... I donno... maybe because that fire was a little different in nature?? Maybe because there weren't several hundred gallons of jet fuel spilled thruout a few floors to cause everything and ANYTHING it touched to burn at high temperature???

] The FEMA report on WTC 7 was inconclusive. My eyes tell me it
] was a controlled demolition. I am not the only one who
] believes this.

No, you probably arent. Just like Elonka pointed out - there are plenty of Holocaust debunkers out there.

] Convince us that it was not a controlled
] demolition, please.

No. Convince *us* it WAS a controlled demolition. Since you also said the antenna started to collapse before the rest of the structure (when it clearly did NOT), the burden of proof is on you. Please cite evidence other than "what (your) eyes tell you". -LB

Laughing Boy wrote:

] Exactly what part of what happened on 9-11 do you not agree
] with? That an airliner crashing into a sky scraper can't
] produce a hot enough fire to soften the steel superstructure
] and cause it to collapse on itself?

Yes, that is what I disagree with. I base that on experiments that have been done on steel frame buildings without fire retardent sprayed on the beams.

] No. Convince *us* it WAS a controlled demolition. Since you
] also said the antenna started to collapse before the rest of
] the structure (when it clearly did NOT), the burden of proof
] is on you. Please cite evidence other than "what (your) eyes
] tell you". -LB

We'll have to agree to disagree about the antenna. I base my belief on the videos of controlled demolitions that I've seen before. I compare what I've come to expect a controlled demolition to look like to what I saw with the WTC 7 building. Have you watched those three links I quoted on WTC 7? You see the top of the building disappear into the structure first, then the whole building neatly collapses into its own footprint. WTC 7 was a 47 story building. The buildings to its left and right were unscathed after its collapse.

Hijexx wrote:
] The FEMA report on WTC 7 was inconclusive. My eyes tell me it
] was a controlled demolition. I am not the only one who
] believes this. Convince us that it was not a controlled
] demolition, please.

For reference, the FEMA report is here:
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

A layman's description is here:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#other

There is also an extensive list of civil engineering analyses here:
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php

Elonka wrote:
]
] For reference, the FEMA report is here:
] http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
]
] A layman's description is here:
] http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#other
]
] There is also an extensive list of civil engineering analyses
] here:
] http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php

Also for reference:

Larry Silverstein:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse," said Larry Silverstein, the WTC Leaseholder. - PBS (9/10/02)

http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

And, lest there be doubt about what "pull" means:

Luis Mendes:

"Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six."
"We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the story walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area," said Luis Mendes, NYC Department of Design and Construction. - PBS (9/10/02)

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pull-it2_lo.wmv

In the context of that second quote, "pull" means "demolish."

I haven't heard anyone disagree that WTC 7's collapse looks like a controlled demolition. I have a few points of contention with the FEMA reports as well but it will have to wait until I get back to my computer.