Religion And Conspiracy Thoeries

[TheJuiceMoose]

Thing you guys have to think about is what the U.S. government had to gain. So what did they have to gain? World sympathy. They needed sympathy from other countries. Countries would say, "ooohhhh...... poor Americans...... of course you can get revenge....... But it's what happens behind the scenes that is important. The United States has been known to sell weapons to other countries. And they sell those weapons to both sides of the conflict. WWII, they sold weapons to both the Axis and the Allies, until the attack on Pearl harbor. Just before the Cuban Missile Crisis, The United States were selling Cuba weapons. Just before the first dessert storm, the Americans sold weapons to Iraq to fight off the Russians. Now I know what your thinking. Why is the United States in such a big debt right now? Because they didn't expect any countries to back down on going to war with Iraq. The U.S. Govn' wants the oil there, and expected things to go quicker, smoother and have more help.

 

[Zeonix]

Thing you guys have to think about is what the U.S. government had to gain. So what did they have to gain? World sympathy. They needed sympathy from other countries. Countries would say, "ooohhhh...... poor Americans...... of course you can get revenge....... But it's what happens behind the scenes that is important. The United States has been known to sell weapons to other countries. And they sell those weapons to both sides of the conflict. WWII, they sold weapons to both the Axis and the Allies, until the attack on Pearl harbor. Just before the Cuban Missile Crisis, The United States were selling Cuba weapons. Just before the first dessert storm, the Americans sold weapons to Iraq to fight off the Russians. Now I know what your thinking. Why is the United States in such a big debt right now? Because they didn't expect any countries to back down on going to war with Iraq. The U.S. Govn' wants the oil there, and expected things to go quicker, smoother and have more help.

If you think the the sole purpose of attacking Iraq was to gain access to Iraqi oil, you're sorely mistaken. The rest of your post is neither here nor there.

 

[DiebytheSword]

Generally the theory goes that temperatures caused by burning JPL (Jet Fuel) are only half of what's required to melt steel. Steel has a very high melting point, but what you never hear is that steel becomes quite brittle at temperatures that dip below zero (when impure steel is used, like on the Titanic), and temperatures that climb high enough to turn steel different colors. That color change is a visible sign that the steel is undergoing chemical change. I've seen it in several different examples, wear tested powerbrushes (which become brittle after a half hour under 13 lbs of load in the worst cases, with temps being only in hot soup territory), or when damaged trimmers get clogged up or overheated from trying to cut with a blunt edge (I've seen them shatter under these conditions countless times), or when already heat treated steel absorbs impact. These skyscrapers are under constant stress from their own weight and from wind pushing against their massive surface that high in the air. While it may not seem like much, most of those buildings actually sway back and forth a bit, perhaps only a few ten thousandths, but that sway is enough to fatuige HT Steel to a breaking point.

For the record, I don't believe we demoed the WTC 1, 2 and 7. I do believe that many administrations kept Osama on the back burner, however, including Clinton and the first Bush.

 

[guest]

Now before you bring up the melting point of steel, as I'm sure you will, I will remind everyone that while jet engine fuel won't burn hot enough to burn steel, it will certainly make it hot enough to considerably weaken it.

So what you're saying is.. You're smarter than the well established architects that declared it is impossible for the towers to have fallen down due to the fire or the aeroplanes?

Oh.. Alright then. Of course, only crazed fruitcakes could belive this wacko madness. I gueess Yukihisa Fujita is, too.

You know, as much as these university students starting their lil' truth movement has helped to spread the search for truth, it's not helped the argument in the slightest. It's discredited it because the guys behind those videos are tossers. Read some of (professor) David Ray Griffin's stuff instead.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I just explained how that works from a metalurgical point of view Fortnox, care to counter my claim with someone from the metallurgy field?

 

[Barney]

When was there ever molten steel coming out of the buildings. Even if there was how could you tell with all the debris. Even more so why would you care about these stupid trivial things? The 9/11 attacks aren't pertinent to anyone even if they know someone who died. You're still alive, so why ***** about life and how the government is microwaving our brains?

And honestly all this talk about religion is sometimes insulting to us that actually have faith and believe in God. I know I can't force anyone to stop talking about it, but please try and tone it down a bit at least.

 

[guest]

When was there ever molten steel coming out of the buildings. Even if there was how could you tell with all the debris. Even more so why would you care about these stupid trivial things? The 9/11 attacks aren't pertinent to anyone even if they know someone who died. You're still alive, so why ***** about life and how the government is microwaving our brains?

There's footage lava-like substances leaking from the towers. Some claim it's evidence of the jet fuel, others say it's evidence of the bombs. The truth is that no-one knows what it is.

I just explained how that works from a metalurgical point of view Fortnox, care to counter my claim with someone from the metallurgy field?

I can't, but I'm sure this guy will have a whack at it for you.
Honestly, there's way too much evidence against the government to believe they didn't have a part in it. I don't believe I know exactly what went on, but I sure as hell know it wasn't "a bunch of pissed off Muslims". The arguments aren't completely concrete, but the counter arguments never are either. And there's the heaps of evidence that can't be countered; the fact that the government is trying to cover it up and refuses to respond to requests even from senators for a official investigation into 9/11.
But I'm sure everyone will be convinced if it happens again before invading Iran. I've no doubt the American government wants to go to Iran, but if there is another terrible, unavoidable mishap one month beforehand..

 

[L]

There's footage lava-like substances leaking from the towers. Some claim it's evidence of the jet fuel, others say it's evidence of the bombs. The truth is that no-one knows what it is.

More than that, there were pools of molten lava under all three collapsed towers, weeks after the debris clean up began.

 

[Zeonix]

I just explained how that works from a metalurgical point of view Fortnox, care to counter my claim with someone from the metallurgy field?

I asked about molten metal .

 

[Spunky]

The funny thing is, the towers were built specifically to resist the impact of a plane crashing into them. You'd think if they went that far, they might have thought about a way to resist the burning jet fuel.

 

[Zeonix]

The funny thing is, the towers were built specifically to resist the impact of a plane crashing into them. You'd think if they went that far, they might have thought about a way to resist the burning jet fuel.

They did.

Anyway:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

It points out that all of the evidence was gotten rid of so quickly, that exhaustive testing wasn't an option. Which sucks for people who think the administration allowed 9/11 to happen as well as for people who think there being a drill simulating a terrorist strike on skyscrapers using hijacked aircraft on the same day, and at the same time was just a coincidence.

 

[Spunky]

Obviously they didn't think hard enough.

Edit: Just read that link. Meh, even if it was explosives, that doesn't mean the government had anything to do with it.

 

[Zeonix]

Obviously they didn't think hard enough.

You're obviously assuming the official story is accurate, which puts you in the minority (as of a 2006 poll, anyway):

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Edit: If it was explosives, all the government needed to do was say, "Terrorists put them there". I would have believed that. I think most people would have. But because all of the blame is placed on a single airplane for each tower, and there's evidence to suggest there's a lot more to the story, people have become suspicious of the official story, and the people who are against another investigation.

Anyway, found two sites (engineers, architects, military personnel, pilots, and professors calling for a new independent investigation):

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

 

[Spunky]

I didn't say I thought the official story was accurate. For all I know, explosives were used. I'm just saying, I doubt the government was responsible. It could have just as easily been a third-party, or even more of the terrorists. Who knows?

 

[Zeonix]

We don't know, and that's why we're trying to find out. I don't know that the government did anything other than ensure the terrorists succeeded. We've only talked about the building itself thus far, but there's far more information available that makes people question just how culpable the administration was in the attacks.

I mean, really, NORAD was conducting war games exercises on 9/11 where one of the scenarios was hijacked aircraft were going to be flown into buildings. They had fake radar blips all over the radar to symbolize those hijacked airplanes. Even if NORAD were going to do it's job, they wouldn't know which blips were false readings and which were the airliners.

What are the chances of terrorists striking on the same day as these war games? I'm certainly not suggesting they were held specifically to help the terrorists, but it would have been possible for someone to alert the terrorist cells to these war games, to give them detailed information that would allow them to complete their mission. All they had to do was attack on the same day, adhere strictly to NORAD's, and their, timetable and they'd catch NORAD with its pants down. Then the question becomes, "Who told them?".

Either they had inside information or they are the luckiest people in the Universe and this was the largest coincidence in the last thousand years. I don't believe in luck and I don't believe in coincidence, so I continue to question the official story.

 

[TheJuiceMoose]

Another thing that's very Ironic, is the Bush Administration is very good friends with the Bin laden family. Guess what family was flown out of the country, in less that on hour after ALL PLANES WERE GROUNDED! IT WAS THE BIN LADEN FAMILY THAT WAS RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES! And think about it, Osama
hasn't been found yet. And then you think about it, Saddam Hussein was found in a hole on a farm. Sure Afghanistan has mountains that Osama can hide in, but with technology now a days, you would think that he could be found in a matter of months. And what was the ONLY reason that the govn't gave us for going into Iraq? They had weapons of mass destruction. What did president Bush say at a public speech a while later. almost exact quote: "Iraq did not have the weapons of mass destruction that we thought they had." Anyone think there was more to the story? Moving out of the reasons for doing it, how many people have seen videos that were close up of the WTCs? There were explosions coming out of the building roughly 10 stories apart from each other as the building collapsed. If you watch a demolition of an office building and the falling of the world trade centers( I'll post videos) they fall the EXACT same way. And plus, if the govn't just told us that bombs knocked down the trade centers, people would believe them less. Why? Because people would want to know why security was able to let them by, set up demolitions, and not notice a thing. So why would the Govn't be able to? Well guess who was head of security ad the WTCs until THE DAY BEFORE 911. Goerge Bush's brother(at the moment cant find his name). (I have more to write but am getting tired from all this typing, so I'll let you respond first.)

 

[Spunky]

As a matter of fact, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's forces moved them into Syria shortly before our arrival.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I asked about molten metal .

I Thought I covered that . . .

People say that motlen metal couldn't have happened in that fire because the fire wasn't hot enough. They're right, but the metal went way over the required temperatures to chemically change, specifically hot enough to grab the carbon atoms released in the fire, which causes the steel to strengthen but become brittle. Think of diamonds, which are the hardest substance on earth, but you can break them with an iron hammer that's much softer because they are brittle.

At this point, if the carbon content is high enough to produce a significant concentration of martensite, the result is an extremely hard but very brittle material. Often, steel undergoes further heat treatment at a lower temperature to destroy some of the martensite (by allowing enough time for cementite etc. to form) and help settle the internal stresses and defects. This softens the steel, producing a more ductile and fracture-resistant metal. Because time is so critical to the end result, this process is known as tempering, which forms tempered steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel

Once steel hits a certain temp, it collects carbon. If it's exposed to oxygen during this process, like an open office building, you get crap quality steel which is very brittle and prone to shattering.

Now, JPL burns in open air at about 287.5 °C (549.5 °F). Inside the office building with only a few holes to outside air, it may have burned hotter, but still not enough to melt steel, which melts at a 1100 and change, depending on the type of steel. Still rapid oxidization and carbon collection at half the that temp are bad for steel. Sometimes heat treated steel can become softer at lower temps too, again, not a good quality for holding up a building.

All in all, heating steel is a bad idea if you want it to do what it was doing before it got hot.

 

[Zeonix]

As a matter of fact, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's forces moved them into Syria shortly before our arrival.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Lots of talk about Saddam moving wmd to Syria, and no evidence to substantiate that claim. Saddam had them at one point. And then he used them. Rather than admit to his greatest foe, Iran, that he was, for all intents and purposes, defenseless in that regard, and could probably be overwhelmed in a conventional war, he kept the charade going.

Paper tigers and all that.

@ Cuc: I can understand steel becoming brittle, and bending and maybe even breaking in half, like a hot wire hanger, possibly causing the top half of the structure to collapse (although I don't really understand why, at those levels, the entire building would fall straight down. I imagine the levels hit and up would fall to the side and maybe pull down the face of one side, but not the entire building, let alone both structures), but I'm still not understanding what conditions would have created pools of liquid steel in/around the towers, since you seem to be saying that as hot as it got, it still wasn't hot enough to create puddles of liquid steel that remained at the site for days.

 

[Spunky]

You should read into Georges Sada, General of the Iraqi Air Force (ret.). To be honest, I'll take his word over the CIA's. What evidence did the CIA have?