World Trade Center Attacks: A Hoax?

[Particle]

Whoever made that site is a fragglewert tard.

Oh, and dont think I was closed minded.  I read the entire article.  I wont accept it unless I see proof from the media (the kind that is very critical of our gvmt, not the cheesy flag-waving media).

You made that first post in under an hour.  I didn't finish reading the site and the evidence linked to from that site and I've been reading for three and a half hours.  I probably skipped over half of it, too.

Look at the pictures, watch the videos, read the explanations.  Some if it seems absurd, but IT DOES MAKE SENSE.

[Darwin]

I read like the opening paragraph, then posted first, and then Read the entire front page (didnt watch any videos or click links).

[Particle]

Well how are you going to give yourself a fair chance to believe it if you don't look at any of the evidence or sources for yourself and just listen to somebody else regurgitate it for you?  Watch the stuff, it's important and convincing.

[GE]

First off, who would wana belive it? Thoses kinda of pll fork up freedom of speach.

 Who would want to belive our troops are dieing everyday for a hoax, and other bullmalarkey. And call me closed minded, But i am also patriotic. The government is unfair sumtimes, but we dont kill innocent civilians on purpose.

[-RPG-secretagnt]

Oh, and dont think I was closed minded.  I read the entire article.  I wont accept it unless I see proof from the media (the kind that is very critical of our gvmt, not the cheesy flag-waving media).

Do you honestly believe that any news that hits the US is uncensored? We have a very biased press, the foreign press arn't here, so what the fork do they know, editors don't want a bad image from negative talk towards our government system, and the government will always say that certain things are "security" issues. Remember when they video taped our dead soldiers, and we called it a war crime? Where the fork was all this "war crime" bullmalarkey when we posted their dead soldiers faces in our newspapers, and put that over the media?

GE: Don't get me wrong, I'm very patriotic as well, I think the US is the best place to live, with the most beautiful women, places to go, and other stuff that blows anything else in the world out of the water. But to be patriotic is to fight for your freedom, for your rights. If the government is going to infringe on these, would you say you were patriotic, and fight against it, or be just a slave?

[Particle]

The US is very messed up, but it's still better than any other country.  Open your damn eyes, man!  Now, I don't know who destroyed the towers, but I am pretty well convinced that the planes did NOT destroy them.  That's what I got out of it more than anything.

Also, if you aren't exposed to it--anything will shock you the first time (such matters as this anyway).  You don't honestly believe that the US has never been involved in anything wrong, do you?  Just another fact, but Dubya has the lowest recorded IQ of any president, immediately followed by George Bush Sr.  Clinton has one of the highest.

You do remember Dubya's dad, don't you?  What he tried to do?  What his motives were?  To not make any sort of connection is similar to that of being a lemming.  They just follow everyone else.

Now, Im not saying our government planned the attacks.  Im saying that the US government is NOT a pure and clean organization.  Im saying that the towers probably werent destroyed by planes.  I do believe that the pentagon was not hit by a plane, but that fact was covered up for whatever reason.  What would make you feel more insecure:  the Pentagon being attacked by a missle or the Pentagon being attacked by just another hijacked airplane?  To me, a weapon of war seems to instill a greater sense of nervousness than a mode of civilian transport.

Who launched the missle?  I dont know.  Im not pointing any fingers yet.

[Silvanoshei]

Darwin, if you have no reason not to believe that the World Trade Center attacks were a hoax other than you simply don't want to, then you are the epitome of closed-mindedness.

[GE]

I'm Not saying you guys arent patrotic, I'm not saying our govenrment is 100% right all the time. Hell Im not even saying there right most of the time. I'm Saying being one of the best countries to live in, that our government would stand by on purpose to kill its own civilins.

 Besides The fires where raging for an hour +. They wenet desinged to even hold that long. I'm Glad our country doesnt take malarkey n e more from thoses terrioust nations. Our colors don't run from there pussy way of killing innocent pll.

To say our government brought down thoses towers is bull malarkey. I'm sure that was the first thing on there mind when seeing millions of scared pll in New York. I bet there where thinking ya look lets colapse these towers to kill more pll (sarcasium). Sorry for spelling and other malarkey trying to get feelings out, and im not caring to much for spelling..  

[xkenshinx]

i don't know if i should bother reading it.... i had my suspicions.. ages ago...

the american government.. is scum... end of story...

ex. how jfk forked over the cubans... by promising to help them during a revolution against communism.. but for whatever reason him and the cia didn't back them...(the people were slaughtered) could be one of the reasons  he was assassinated... but it was probably bobby's fault heh... *sigh* american... goverment bah (ive mentioned this atleast 3 times on the forum lol)

so.. which prez had the highest iq... and how low was dubya's

[Particle]

found a partial list:

147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
098 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

[-RPG-secretagnt]

Both Roosevelts were totally awesome.  

[Lidge Farkley]

I read the front page of the main document, and one of the links off to their link to the "proof" that the heat wasn't hot enough to menlt the steel which was in a report by a BBC newepaper which said "fire reached 800 C, hot enough to melt steel."  Which this person then followed up with "link to steel facts" in which the melting point of steel was posted.

Now... because you cite a newspaper which do get facts wrong ALL the time (take when my high school's science building burned halfway out in 1996? [6 or 7] for example, they reported it in 5 big county and adjacent county newspapers and even on the news and not a SINGLE report got more than the burning part right) so citing one with what could be an error in it as a source for why you're right... I don't think is correct.

Aside from that, the MELTING point of steel which this person linked to is the point at which steel becomes liquid like, NOT the point at which it becomes maleable enough to bend under wieght.

Need some more counter-info?  Rebar, the stuff used to reinforce cement, comes in 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, and 1 inch thick standard consumer grade probably up to 2" and down to 1/8 (don't know for sure... only bought what I listed)

I made an entire metal frame with 3/8" rebar that I cut and bent by hand using nothing but my own body to make 90o or more bends.  Yes it was a pain in the ass, but the point is, I (6' 2" 135 pound weak limbed man at the time) was able to bend and break more than 12 feet of 3/8" steel rebar for my project at room temperature, with out a bending tool.  (I had a hack saw for cutting it, btw)  The project also had a 1/2" rebar spine if I remember correctly which bent 90o at the bottom, which I also bent by hand (though I used an extension bar for leverage on this 1/2".)

Obviously steel reinforcement bar (rebar) is weaker than steel building gerters... BUT... these already heated parts on the building were then being compressed and tentioned by the floors above bearing down on them, and at a heated state steel becomes much easier to bend as it becomes more maleable (though still not melted.)  Because of the combined probelms of the possibly loosened joints from impact, the heat of the fuel making the steel more maleable, and the tension of the whole upper stories of the building on affects parts... it seems quite possible to have happened the way it did.

If you want to see how easy it is to bend some rebar, go on down to a local hardware store and buy a piece of 3/4, 3/8, and 1/2 inch steel rebar.  I guarantee you it's bendable by hand with no tools.

If you want to get crazy... heat it up in something as simple as a campfire (make sure you're wearing welding style gloves) and then give it a bend.

It's strength somes in cool rigidity.  Once it's changed just enough it gives way like a charm.

That is the addressing of the steel bending possibility... I don't care to, but I may write more later... :-/

Did the government ever give us it's sources used when writing their reports? Did they give us scientific explanations, or other places they found their info? I don't think so.

As a neutral I don't trust anyone... it's sad sometimes, but I still am comapassionate to my fellow human being though I may not trust them.  

I prove things to myself and sometimes others who want to know through my own life experiences and the observed experiences of others.  For me, my own experiences in playing with fire, metal, and tension - compression system gives me feeling that the building legitimately could have fallen from a plane with full tanks ramming into it.

...
There is a group of engineers that made a program all about the building probelms for public television (PBS) in the USA...  According to them it had a lot of problems in it's internal design anyway.  I'm not saying they're right, but it was a large range of engineers from all civilian (from what I saw, though I didn't watch the whole program) engineering groups and they did go into great detail about a lot of the whole mess.  [none of which I have posted at all]  It'd be kind of neat to post that as a counter-example if this truly is some kind of warped debate. ;-p
...

Adios!

[Particle]

As you said, rebar isn't as strong as structural steel.  Also, the thicker the steel member becomes, there is a stacking effect.  Not only that, but an I-beam has added strength due to shape.  These beams were inches thick.  That and the fact that rebar (IN CONJUNCTION) with concrete is where the strength of reinforced concrete comes in.  The main purpose of the rebar is to improve the problem of tensile strength, though it does have other benefits.  Also, that rebar has ridges.  Once cemented in place, the force you'd have to exert to bend that would be much greater due to the concrete around it, which is now being applied to a compression force instead of a bending force.

If you kept reading, there were links to a structural steel manufacturer's information website about their own stuff, which stated how much of the member's strength is retained at x degrees C (chart).  At 800C, there would still have been enough strength for the absolute MAXIMUM load the floor was rated for.  You must remember that the heat from this fire doesn't just directly heat the members it's around, either.  Steel conducts heat energy mildly well, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if at least three or so floors worth of steel members were heated up as well, spreading the heat.  The oxygen content in such a confined space would also probably not be sufficient for the fuel to burn at full temperature (what was left after the fireballs, that is).  Even if jet fuel does burn hotter, it would be oxygen deprived and not burn at that temperature.

If you look at the video, you can indeed clearly see demolition charges go off, which I believe ultimately destroyed the building.  About a second before it starts to collapse, a series of charges blow out from the building (folks, this wasn't an explosives plant), then in regular intervals a few more charges below the level of failure continue (perhaps to ensure complete failure?).

[LastWish]

Oh my god..  Bush has an IQ of 91???  That is damn near retarded..

[-RPG-secretagnt]

Now to think of it, I DO remember seeing those charges... And thinking "uh... wtf was that?".

Ugh, I'm believing this more and more as this thread goes. =\

But the question I really want to know is... why would they do this? If it's to help the economy, why would we be spending as much as we do on war? Even Bin Laden said himself that he did it, and that he'd do it again...

MEH! >_<