Want the proof that 9/11 was an inside job?
Do you think it's possible our government could have aided, or even carried out the attacks of September 11th? Do you think that any suggestion of such a thing is ridiculous "conspiracy theory?" If so, I welcome you to read on, and even more, feel free to question me or raise any doubts you might have, or evidence you've found which contradicts
( Read more... )
Well, if you follow the 9/11 movement, you would know that several structural engineers (not to mention top officials in Reagan, Bush sr. and even G.W. administrations) HAVE come forward and called the official story ludicrous. Underwriters Laboratories who inspected the steel for the World Trade Center said that it would have been impossible for normal steel, not to mention the heat resistant high quality steel used in the WTC, to have melted due to fire caused by jet fuel (let alone burning carpeting or paper). So many people just assume that "conspiracy theorists" are making these ridiculous claims, or are jumping to conclusions, and they fail to realize that all these other important, reputable people are coming forward to reject the official story. This is due to a media blackout on anything that questions 9/11. The only reason they let the Charlie Sheen story get through on "Showbiz Tonight" was so they could project the image of, "oh no, more celebrities and their stupid opinions," especially given a source that is so easy to smear - Charlie Sheen.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/070606jones.htm
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Still, people refuse to look into the facts, and stubbornly hold fast to their OPINIONS that things like this could never happen. Simply because they don't want to believe they could happen, or they don't *think* they could happen, and conspiracy theorists are so easy to smear and discount out of hand.
"But for as many people saying it was controlled demolition there are quite a few others (with equally good credentials) saying it was not."
Actually find me a reference where someone with good credentials backs the official story (besides articles in Popular Mechanics who's editor Benjamin Chertoff, by the way, is the cousin of the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the biased 9/11 Commision Report which Fire Engineering magazine called a "half-baked farce"). I will find you a dozen more where people with good credentials come out against it.
As for Alex Jones, Bohemian Grove isn't one of his better documentaries simply because as you say, it is a lot of speculation, and not much substance. I wish he would focus more on the fact that all these powerful people are coming out into the woods to vacation and decide public policy, rather than on any possible occult aspects, which are a hard-sell to anyone besides Christians (which Alex Jones is, by the way). I myself do find it odd that all of these powerful people are re-enacting ancient child-sacrifice rituals to the Phoenician god Moloch, but hey, you know that could mean anything...
Reply
Uhm, yeah, I'm well aware of that and it was pretty much my point. I was saying that there are structural engineers supporting both sides of the argument. To me at least, there does not seem to be an expert consensus on this issue, and so to you and me (people who are not structural engineers) it is difficult to judge the superiority of either side.
"Actually find me a reference where someone with good credentials backs the official story (besides articles in Popular Mechanics who's editor Benjamin Chertoff, by the way, is the cousin of the Secretary of Homeland Security..."
I'll ignore that ad hominem argument, of which I was already aware, for the moment (attacking the man instead of finding logical problems with his argument) and will attempt to give you at least a couple of other expert opinions.
First I have Dr. Thomas Eagar, "A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." He attempts to explain the "symmetrical free fall" of the WTC without any recourse to a controlled demolition theory:
"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?
Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over." From (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html)
Or we have Zdenek P. Bazant (probably a Czech, as a side note, as his last name means "pheasant" in Czech), "Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University" who explains the collapse in these terms:
"The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core." (from http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/)
Again, a highly qualified individual is able to explain the collapse within the bounds of the "official version."
continued...
Reply
30 minutes? That's "prolonged heating" ?
I would also add here that none of these other pancake theorists seem to have an explanation for the sulfide residue that was found on the wreckage. Stephen Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University suggests that sulfide residue is a byproduct of a thermite detonation.
Reply
"The results are illuminating and show that the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire. The analysis results show a simple but unmistakable collapse mechanism that owes as much (or more) to the geometric thermal expansion effects as it does to the material effects of loss of strength and stiffness. The collapse mechanism discovered is a simple stability failure directly related to the effect of heating (fire). Additionally, the mechanism is not dependent upon failure of structural connections." (from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V37-4956RC6-2&_user=809099&_handle=V-WA-A-W-D-MsSAYZW-UUW-U-AAVZZCACUB-AAVVWBWBUB-DDUECWWZV-D-U&_fmt=summary&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2003&_rdoc=1&_orig=browse&_srch=%23toc%235723%232003%23999619993%23442426!&_cdi=5723&view=c&_acct=C000043939&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=809099&md5=3bb424c7b33fcb806f6fadcc1db0ac67)
And last there's "G. Charles Clifton is a HERA structural engineer with 17 years of experience in the research, design and construction of steel framed buildings. A significant part of the research has been determining the behavior of steel framed buildings under the extreme events of severe earthquake or severe fire."
"However, even with the top floors toppling sideways, sufficient material would have impacted straight down on the floors below the impact region to have caused these to start to pancake downwards, leading to the tower below the impact region collapsing in much the same manner as the North tower. With both towers, the forces created by the falling floors above on the floors below would have been orders of magnitude greater than the resistance of these floors, leading to the complete collapses then observed."
(from http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf#search='collapse%20of%20the%20world%20trade%20center)
All of these professionals seem to accept the idea that the towers could have collapsed without the need for any controlled demolition. I'm not trying to prove this beyond any doubt, I accept that there are many who disagree, but it certainly is a disputed point, which was my point.
As for our other dicusssion, re Mr. Jones:
"I myself do find it odd that all of these powerful people are re-enacting ancient child-sacrifice rituals to the Phoenician god Moloch, but hey, you know that could mean anything...
Sure it looks very strange when you take it complete out of context and highlight the particularly odd religious elements. But then again we could do the same thing with almost any other religion, Catholicism, for example, practices a form of cannibalism known as communion, wherein the believer consumes the literal flesh and blood of Christ by virtue of transubstantiation. A "sacrifice" can be a highly metaphorical, even philosophical act. In the context of what I saw regarding the bohemian grove I believe they were sacrificing "dull care" which seemed to be nothing other than the concerns of daily humdrum life. Presumably the "bohemians" desire to inspire a feeling of communitas (communal brotherhood) by virtue of "sacrificing" their daily concerns in order to spend some time free from worries. There is nothing terribly abnormal or strange about this, it's a fairly typical ritual at least from what I've encountered. Also, it is a little bit of a stretch to completely associate that owl with Moloch, as Moloch was typically personified as a sacred bull. The diety is probably a conglomeration of different entities, including the quite benign Pallas Athena, whose symbol actually is an owl, and who represents wisdom.
Reply
In closing, you could spend forever arguing over one detail, however when you take every detail and add them all up, it becomes more and more improbable that all of these things are just coincidences.
Reply
Leave a comment