LDS Freedom Forum

You guys are all wrong. Lex Luthor is behind this. His lair was beneath the towers. He was doing some remodeling and removed a support beam at the same time the planes hit the towers. Thus the collapse of the 3 buildings. They fell into their footprint because the ground collapsed underneath. The good news is that Lex Luthor escaped unharmed. Or is that bad news?

Mark wrote:

[2) The CIA trained them. Al Qaeda (The Network) was trained by our forces. Verified.]

Wrongo. The Cia involvement ended in the 80s when we useded them to defeat the Russians. Now they are returning the favor against us.

We have bigger fish to fry before January 20 rolls around. This discussion is also a diversion.

Mark wrote: Okay I'm game. Beats watching TV.

Oldemandalton wrote:[Larsenb;
Yes, actually, quite a few. In fact the main ones, vis.: 1) pretext for smashing countries in the Middle East, partial prelude to bringing them into the 'democratic' (read NWO) fold, Moslem countries are a major stumbling block; they need softening up, re-arranging, re-alligning; made dependent on western capital infusions (loans, etc.; 2) control of oil resources and pipeline routes; 3) flanking Russia, etc., (read the Grand Chessboard, Brzezinsky); above all, getting people on-board with the perpetual 'war on terror', the kind of thing that can be kept going for decades w/little maintenance and input, meanwhile providing all sorts of pretexts for greater global control mechanisms, etc., etc. Bringing down the buildings was SOOOOO much more dramatic, greatly deepened the trance state of the hundreds of millions who saw the events repeated and repeated and repeated on TV. Shortly thereafter, we saw commentary after commentary, two of which on about the 2nd day were high-level CFR officials who came on TV to basically tell us how to think about the events. If you've ever heard some of these early talks redacted where everything was cut out except references to 'terror', 'war on terror', you would hear something like: terrror, terror, terror, terror, war on terror, terror, war on terror, terror, terror, terror . . . . . . ad an almost infinitum. Excellent repetitive propaganda technique, especially when viewers have been lulled into deep trance states from viewing actual 'terror' on their TV's again, and again. Enough??]

Lets look at the plan the terrorists had and then you try and tell me, if the maximum damage would have occurred, that the above results would not occurred OR WORSE. Again, we don't KNOW what plan the 'terrorists' had outside of what happened, and what DID happen was sufficient to embark us on the 'war on terror' and invading two separate Moslem countries. If the premise you apparently believe in is true, i.e., that 9/11 was really perpetrated by the kidney-challenged Osama bin Laden from an Afghanistan/Pakistan cave, for the purpose of detroying the USA, you're argument has some merit; but the fact they very deliberately AVOIDED hitting the Pentagon where it would do maximum damage and take out the most important people and the most people, undercuts your argument. AND, if these same Moslem terrorists actually WERE involved in planting somekind of explosives in WTC I, II and Bldg 7 to bring the buildings down in an expression of maximum damage and terror, your argument would dictate that they would want to bring them all down asymetrically to inflict maximum damage to surrounding buildings and population. This did not happen, which would again undercut your argument.
1. Hijack 4 planes and ram them into the highest priority targets they could conceive of.
2. Choose these targets. These would include an attack on our Military, Finance, and Government itself.
3. What better Targets, than the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the Capital. Your putting the Capital into this list is simple conjecture.4. Maximum Damage; Yes, 'maximum damage'; for the Twin Towers and even Bldg7 to tumble to the ground is in fact maximum damage. Very good Dalton. You agree with me and many others on this point. Create havock in the airline industry.
Twin Towers; Damage a major portion of the towers through the impact and fire. Burn it to the ground. Give me one example where fires have burned a high-rise, steel structure to the ground, please. Remember the quote where a lead fireman coming up to the floors containing damage/fires, said it would only take one or two lines to 'knock it down'? Also, remember the pictures of several people standing in the gapping hole where the plane entered one of the building? How are such fires going to burn the rest of the building 'to the ground'??
Pentagon; Kill as many of the hated US Military leaders as possible and cause terrible damage. Then why did they have the incoming plane go into a complicated and difficult manuever to hit the relatively unoccuppied, recently reinforced part of the Pentagon, thereby doing the least damage and killing the fewest and most unimportant people? Other people here have mentioned this. You ignore this, for some unexplicable reason.
Capital Building; Kill or maim as many of the Senators, Congressmen and their aids and other leaders present as possible and destroy the building with its contents of historical documents and art work. Again, this is simply your conjecture. There are just as good arguments that Flight 93 was aimed at Bldg 7 or the White House.

The Capital building would have been the icing on the cake. Could you, Larsenb, imagine the horror and anger across this country if the above maximum damage would have occurred? Think of the disruption in Government this would have caused. What better way to “take over” this government without the Legislative Branch? How much could you do with only the Courts and the Presidency? It wasn’t the Towers falling they wanted it was the Capital. I believe that God had a hand in that plane going down in that pasture. We should all thank those brave people on that plane who saved us from that calamity. Actually, Flight 93 was shot down, leaving unanswered how I 'know' that. All your imaginings are mere speculation and assumptions regarding the real objectives of the real 'terrorists'. But what you suggest may very well happen sometime down the pike.


[MD, do me a favor. Please show me your rebuttals by cutting and pasting from your posts (keep it short and sucinct, please) the arguments you think refute my contentions. I've been through myriad long articles purporting to prove this and that, and they mostly boil down to conjecture, ignore pertinent issues, side step or obfuscate others, use straw man arguments. They are not experimental/observational science. I've wasted months doing this kind of thing, including visiting the sites you mention]

Stop wasting your and my time then, Larsenb. As I mentioned in my above posts, I don’t trust scientists. Dalton, this statement is a major contradiction in what you seem to have been trying to do. Why are you citing nothing but 'scientists' opposing the 'demolition' theory, if you don't trust any scientists? You drastically undercut yourself here. So how is answering questions you are asking people to answer wasting your time?? I don't get it. My suggestion is simply that you could cut down on the fog-factor if you would high-grade out of your several posts and links the things you think directly support your contention. Now, if what you are actually doing is trying to get across the idea that there is an 'opposition', then it may have some merit. But you need to be a little more upfront in saying, that even though you have discovered some opposition, you don't really believe either of them. Marc is a bit more open with this kind of a stance. But this stance is VERY solipsistic, getting back to my contention that both of you seem to think there is 'my science, your science, and myriad other sciences', and you don't have to believe any one of them, just pick and choose, thank you.
I have seen where they have been wrong before. We are being distracted by chasing windmills when the true LDGs go about doing their work and laughing at us as we debate the 9/11 myth. I think the work Dr. Jones and others is doing is the opposite of chasing windmills. They have at least a chance to force an independent investigation of 9/11 with real subpoena powers that might really flush some of the LDG's out of their holes. For you, I think you might find it beneficial to give Dr. Jones 14 points paper a good read, and if you find something in your material you think refutes any of those points, simply cite and briefly quote it. That could generate a good discussion. It is 1/2/09 and we should look at what is in front of us. I feel we are very close to the Coming Perfect Storm. It will soon be upon us. Look ahead, see the storm? Lets defeat that one,the storm that is emanate, not the one which has past.

[No
they're not. Dr. Jones will get into that.]

All he has proven is that the same chemicals in thermite was found at ground zero, which wouldn’t surprise me in the least. These are common chemicals. I am not a scientist so what can I say about the 14 points being a layman? That would be someone elses job not mine. I just go by what I see, hear and have experienced. Dalton, that ISN'T what he is saying at all. But run your assertion by him to see how he responds to it.

shadow wrote:

Mark wrote: Okay I'm game. Beats watching TV.

Well if you missed the Sugar bowl you missed an awesome game!

Mark wrote:
Those like Red pill continue to sling condescending remarks at us because we dare question the accepted notions of conspiracy that most on this board carry. Like I said before the search for truth seems to only be of interest if it coincides with accepted and preconceived notions of conspiracy as espoused by those like Alex Jones and Info wars. Anything else is heresy and unwelcome stupidity. Seems pretty one sided to me but what do I know. I am no illuminated soul..

The Red Pill wrote: Does a Mormon missionary give up and avoid discussion when given time with a professor of religion? No way, that is their finest hour!

The Constitution is hanging by a thread. The Perfect Storm is upon us. We must make sure that our families and us are prepared.

Oldemandalton wrote:[Truthseeds, excellent summary of so many of the problems with official story! That was a LOT of work! Loved your 'freshly-anthraxed' comment, which raises a whole other issue. If the story of Al Queda pulling off 9/11 wasnt enough to convince Congress to go along with the 'War on Terra', the Ft. Detrix-connected, weaponized anthrax certainly tipped them over the edge. After that, why bother reading Patriot Act I at all? Absolutely no need. Dismantle the Constitution in a trice, and the sooner the better. Fear really works!]

Just curious, larsenb, I would very much have your ideas on the following questions. Just to see if we have any common ground.

Who flew the planes into the Towers? There is a lot of speculation about this, all the way from: those named by gov., but called into question by 6-7 of these individuals claiming to be still alive; to idea that planes' autopilots were comandeered and they were steered into buildings remotely. For me, such questions are interesting speculation. Regarding 911, my attention is focused on how the WTC buildings collapsed. If this is wrong, the whole gov. story is called into question and an independent investigation needs to be ramped up to delve into ALL 9/11 questions and anomolies.
Where did these guys train before interring flight school here in the US? I've read articles claiming they had extensive training in other Moslem countries. Other articles covering their 'training' in flight schools here indicate prior training, if any', was not very effective. So if they had more extensive training elsewhere, it would have to have been later. Whether they were adequately trained or not, absolute proof that they were in the pilots seats of the hijacked planes, is lacking, in my view.
Did they belong to a larger group or were they just the 19? As mentioned, there are claims from 6-7 of the alleged hijackers (and these are reasonably credible, according to what I have read) that they are still alive and their identies were stolen. Of course there had to be a group of people larger than the alleged 19 who pulled off 9/11. This is especially true if the hypothesis regarding the use of 'demolitions/cutting charges' is true.
Are the Islamic Radicals in the Middle East pose a danger to the US or Western Civilization. Potentially, especially if we keep stirring them up by pre-emptive warfare, etc. Our actions over there have greatlly stirred up their hornets nest. I've talked about this in another reply to one of your posts.

I am asking you these things just to get your perspective.

Thank You

OMD

Oldemandalton wrote:[I'm just winding my way through this thread from beginning and have been responding to a few things as I encounter them, which probably others have adequately addressed already. But Oldeman, you need to go to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org/) and the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/) to find scientifc rebuttals to most of your questions]

There is a lot here, Larsenb, could you be more specific?, Thanks. OMD, you have spent considerable time, apparently wading through myriad articles and links looking for arguments that attempt to counter the explosive hypothesis. If you are interested in learning about the arguments FOR the explosive hypothesis, you shouldn't mind doing the same kind of research in this arena. Conveniently, these links provide a one-stop shopping point for some of the best arguments for this point of view. Enjoy.

[Just looking at your assertion above, it violates Newton's 3rd Law AND violates the law of the Conservation of Momentum (related to Newton's 2nd Law) in view of the near free-fall speeds of all the collapses (WTC 1, 2 and Bldg 7). The impulse of an upper block falling on the lower, intact building would involve first elastic then inelastic deformation until breakage, if lower stages would break at all. Further more, the breakage (if it happened) would not propogate all the way down to bottom of the lower block, but would be maximized close to the initial impact point. Think of a car plowing into a building. Where is maximum damage? Yes, you're right, closest to the impact point. And THEN, you would have to start the process all over again. It would also involve kinetic energy transformation into heat. All of this would subtract from the original downward momentum/kinetic energy of the upper block and would take much more time than the free-fall times that would be registered if the upper block encountered no resistance. You CANNOT have the upper block arriving at the bottom in near free-fall time under these kinds of conditions.]

The Towers did not fall at freefall speeds, that would be 9 secs. Depending on who you believe the time has been reported anywhere from 8-18 seconds. The NIST report caculated 9-11 seconds for the fall-times of the two twin towers. This is 'near freefall'. Are you suggesting NIST has miscalculated? The Building 7 collapse has been mapped to indicate an initial 2-3 second free-fall rate, with a total fall time of 6.6 seconds by most calculations I've seen. See Dr. Jones' entries on this on his new thread. There is a study in the links mentioned above that does a nice estimate of the probable collapse time of the twin towers given the scenario of pancake collapse. Even with the most liberal initial conditions allowed, the study can only get it down to about 45 seconds. If you're interested, search out the article.

For explanations on Conservation of Momentum see;
tp://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf;
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

OMD, do me a favor, highgrade the statements from these web sites you think adequately explain how Conservation of Momentum considerations are not violated by the official explanation.
[Restated another way, and mentioned I think multiple times by several others in this thread, you can't expect the upper blocks to plough through the path of maximum resistence (including the 47 massive block columns in the core), all the way to the bottom in the same time you would get if you suspended the upper blocks over thin air and let them drop. This CANNOT happen. Oldeman, you can use all the adductive logic you can dream up, but it will fail if you don't take into consideration these scientific principles.]

I agree that it couldn’t and didn’t happen as you stated it. Let me restate it in a clearer fashion: the upper blocks (and Bldg 7) could not plow through the path of maximum resistance in the times they appear to have done so, which has been described as 'near free fall time' by NIST report, without much of the resistance in the lower blocks being removed by something such as explosives. In building 7, such material was removed in the first 3 seconds, allowing fee-fall during that time.

[This is the 'impossible' as per Sherlock Holmes' dictum I mentioned earlier.
Also, when you consider the energy of turning much of the concrete floors into dust, you would have a further subtraction of total energy provided by the fall of the upper block and further increase in the time involved.]

Again the concrete didn’t turn to dust. Didn’t you see the pictures of the wreckage pile? My assertion was 'much of the concrete', not all of the concrete.

[Finally, Newtons 3rd Law (synopsized by: for every action their is an equal and opposite reaction), would assure that the upper block would equally disintegrate along with the upper portions of the lower block. For the North tower, which was hit higher up, the upper block would have disintegrated by the time the top 10 or so floors of the lower block had disintegrated. You would then be left with myriad fragments, many of which were clearly flung outside of the perimeter of the building, losing their coherency, much of their mass, and thus their ability to act as a single 'pile-driver'.]

Nothing was “disintegrated”. It all collapsed on itself as described previously and the building was crushed to rubble not dust. It still had an enormous mass. Let's just equate 'crushed to rubble' with disintegrate. Symantecs.
[ It doesn't wash that this incoherent and dissipated mass could continue on to crush lower floors all the way to the bottom. And you still have the time issue, even if it could.]

It did but not in the 8 or 9 seconds of free fall. Who said 8-9 seconds. Building 7 collapsed in about 6.6 seconds, by most estimations. As mentioned above 9-11 seconds for the Twin Towers was highlighted the NIST report.

[Does this help??]

Yes, thank you larsenb.

OMD

Oldemandalton wrote:[I had a version of this post ready to submit and I hit the wrong button, which deleted it. Second attempt.
These are at least interesting hypothetical articles. After giving them a quick scan, however, I have a few comments.
The origin of the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower window, etc., is certainly open to speculation. First, I've seen 2-3 videos of this event, each of which pan the lower reaches of the flow, and I don't recall seeing the material turn to a silver color. I remember seeing about the same white-yellow color persisting all the way down.
Also, as I recall, the author mentions nothing about the white smoke coming off the point of origin. Neither does he say anything about the splattering effect that is highly visible at the point of origin, both of which are indicative of a thermitic reaction. He ignores the possibility that the white smoke is aluminum oxide which is the oxidation product of a thermite reaction and is whitish in color. And the visible splattering looks more like a reaction effect than just the flow of molten aluminum out of a window. But of course, this is all speculative without more direct evidence.
Further, the author puts an awful lot of store in the yellow-white color value of the molten material being caused by the addition of debris, such as office furniture (wood, plastics, etc.) to the molten material. This is highly speculative, especially in the light of the preliminary experiment performed by Steve Jones and others, where adding such material to molten aluminum had no such effect.]

The speculation goes both ways larseb. Why should I believe your theories and speculation and not mine when I have not been given a plausible explanation for, Why Bother.
OMD, I didn't say the speculation about the apparent molten metal flowing out of Bldg 2, was much more than speculation. I was simply pointing out the other side of the story.
[Finally, in his attempts to equate the amount of material flowing out of the window (not sure how he was able to estimate that), with mass-ballance calculations of the amount of iron produced in a thermitic reaction, he seems to ignore the iron that could have been melted by the reaction. When you put a thermite bomb on an engine block, you are getting iron from both the reduction of Fe2O3 AND from the resulting high temperature melting of the engine block.
And a couple of comments on the speculation that shock energy being transmitted down the box columns was sufficient to greatly raise temperatures of steel in the subbasements of all three buildings, with the temperatures subsequently increased by addition of steam and O2 to the point of melting them and keeping the pot cooking for several weeks. He seems to be caught in a basic contradiction in requiring that the box columns stay intact long enough to transmit the energy to the basement. But if the shock energy from collapsing floors didn't break them, what did? Maybe I glossed over what he said. One last question: has this heating effect from collapsing buildings been observed before, either in imploded buildings at least as high as Bldg 7, or perhaps measured to a lesser degree in smaller buildings brought down by demolitions?

You miss understood. It wasn’t JUST the energy from the box columns. Don’t forget the burning jet fuel and contents of the building. OMD, give me a quote indicating I misunderstood. I may be wrong, but I gleaned after my quick scan of the article, that the author is contending that the high temperatures generated in the subbasements of the twin towers was primarily generated by an energy shock wave that propogated down the outer edges of the outer box columns of the central core. The NIST report admits that the jet fuel was burned out within about the first 10-15 minutes, so would not be present to contribute to heat in the subbasement over 45 minutes later.

OMD

pritchet1 wrote:If this were even remotely plausible as a process for melting metal (vibration and spontaneous collapse of outer casing of metal columns), we have just found a source for new energy. Imagine the possibilities! (Snarky comment.). . . . . . . . . . .
All we have to do to reclaim and process metal from old buildings is to run old derelict planes full of kerosine into them, causing a collapse to create a lake of red-hot molten metal that will stay that way for weeks. Gee, why didn't I think of that?

Why hasn't this new-found process been done since 2001 to other structures and reclamation projects? Because it didn't happen that way and cannot be duplicated.

Mark wrote:The competitive types of slams that enter into a contentious discussion displaying an attitude of "I have to win the argument and put you down in the process" are not productive or brotherly. I am sorry if I have fallen short in this important area of communication at times. I hope to improve in that.