Now see... this kind of thing becomes difficult for skeptics...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990438' date='May 25 2006, 11:45 AM']
I've seen a couple of videos of building demolitions. All you hear is cracking sounds from the explosives and then the collapse noise takes over. You don't see flashes unless there is sufficient line of sight to the detonation sources. A building as large as the towers has never before been demolished with explosives. If you notice, the largest pieces of metal in that pile at ground zero were the EXTERNAL framework, which would not have been blown up. If explosives were used, they were used to crack the support columns, deep inside and out of sight, and also, presumably somewhat muffled by the rest of the building. However, there is one video taken from a stationary camera tripod set on the roof of a another building. Seconds before the first collapse, the whole camera vibrates as though a tremor had run through the earth and a large piece of debris falls from the hole in the building. Something BIG was obviously detonated before that building began to collapse.
I've definitely considered this. But their motives are far less understandable than those which our our current government would have.
It defies logic only because our school history books do not record the ACTUAL reasons for the events of the 20th century. The only SHORT way I can present YOU with a piece of the 20th century's true history is to point you to the historian and essayist Gore Vidal. Start reading his stuff and you will realize that our government had every reason imaginable to authorize a psy-ops attack on the American people like 911.

In short, the goal is to wipe out Islam. There are so many reasons for doing this that our leaders have, but its sufficient for now to say "follow the money and the transnational corporate connections."

Read Gore Vidal. His knowledge is imperative.
[/quote]
With all due respect, Gore Vidal is a raving left-wing lunatic (as well as a militant homosexual and vehement anti-Christian). (He wrote a "funny" novel, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140231196/qid=1148606280/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"][i]Live from Golgotha : The Gospel According to Gore Vidal[/i][/url], mocking the Church, and portraying St. Paul and the early Church as flaming homosexuals.)
Why is the "knowledge" of this man "imperative"? What hidden secrets does he possess?

(And what has George W. Bush gained personally by blowing up the WTC according to you? How has it enriched him?)

Besides, we all know the interdimensional space lizards are behind all this with their Reptilian Agenda.
Read [url="http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/"]David Ickes[/url]. His knowledge is imperative.

(And btw, Winchester is a professional fireman. He knows what he's talking about.)

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990438' date='May 25 2006, 11:45 AM']
I've seen a couple of videos of building demolitions. All you hear is cracking sounds from the explosives and then the collapse noise takes over. You don't see flashes unless there is sufficient line of sight to the detonation sources. [/quote]
I'll concede that. I've seen tons of demolitions, first hand and in videos (hooray for discovery channel). True, it would be nearly impossible to see the flashes on such a building with a consolidated exterior.

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990438' date='May 25 2006, 11:45 AM']
It defies logic only because our school history books do not record the ACTUAL reasons for the events of the 20th century. The only SHORT way I can present YOU with a piece of the 20th century's true history is to point you to the historian and essayist Gore Vidal. Start reading his stuff and you will realize that our government had every reason imaginable to authorize a psy-ops attack on the American people like 911.

In short, the goal is to wipe out Islam. There are so many reasons for doing this that our leaders have, but its sufficient for now to say "follow the money and the transnational corporate connections."[/quote]
"...every reason imaginable..."? I don't even know how to respond to that tbh...

I will say, far be it from ME to hang my hat on ONE person's analysis of historical facts, altho I'm sure we could develop a nice list of guys like Vidal so meh. It's irrelevant.

If Gore Vidal was that accurate, then he would surely be unfortunately dead. And if you are correct in your assertion that he is 100% spot-on, then that defies all logic as well. In which case that reminds me, I need to change out the batteries in my transponder out in the San Luis Valley so I don't miss out on my quarterly abduction and all the joys that go with it. :

Nevertheless, if 9-11 were indeed a psy-ops attack, the CTB ratio is still WAY off when reviewed from the standpoint of deliberate gov't involvement. I think one could achieve the same at half the cost and twice the return, not to mention far more plausible deniability, doing something different. And you never know, maybe they will.

[I only brought up the backdraft term because most people (including a former FF ) won't recognize the term. Oh and it's darker smoke puffing out of an enclosed area that is the critical warning sign, having thought about it awhile now...]

Edited May 26, 2006 by hierochloe

[Winchester]

Well well well.

[quote]In addition, the smoke, from whatever fires were still burning, was black. Black smoke, as any fire expert will tell you, is a sign that a fire is suffocating.
[/quote]

"Black smoke suggests the presence of petroleum products"
"Reduced amounts of oxygen produce large amounts of dark grey or yellow smoke"
Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics by John Norman

[quote]All the experts agree that the fuel burned up completely within five minutes after the initial explosion[/quote]

"likely burned off in a matter of 10-15 seconds" ibid.

That's another expert, and less than five is pretty beaver dam far from 10.

[quote]Right before the collapse of (I forget which tower exactly), one of the firefighters radioed to his chief on the ground that he had located a sum total of TWO small spot fires at the IMPACT ZONE. He then requested water lines. [/quote]

South tower:
"It took almost 55 min after their arrival for Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, Fire Marshal Ronnie Bucca, (both marathon runners) and the members of Ladder Company 15 to ascend from the 44th floor to the 78th floor (where the plane impacted the South Tower). Radio transcripts show these members had just begun to operate a standpipe line in an attempt to protect a stairway, when the South Tower collapsed..." ibid.

Firefighters did not ascend alone and did not have to call for lines. They brought them along. That's how highrise tactics work. I've heard the actual transmissions. I've listened to them. I've heard the last transmissions before the first collapse--the final words of these men you are dishonoring with vagaries and misinformation. The transmission would have indicated the floor, not "impact zone," unless said firefighter had broken with proper communication. Floor numbers are concrete, words like "impact zone" are not.

I also point out two spot fires would not have produced the volume of smoke coming from the towers.

At high rise fires, the wind plays a factor. We are very careful about breaking windows because opening one on the windward side can create a blowtorch effect. "Multiple 2 1/2 handlines operating from the staircases have been unable to advance."
2 1/2 inch lines can develop 250 or more gpm. Dealing with these fires involves massive amounts of personnel. I will repeat that the command staff had decided they could not extinguish the fire. The tactics were set up for evacuation, not suppression. They were very succesful, rescuing "all but approximately 200 people below the impact points." I mentioned before the chiefs saw collapse as a possibility. This is without thinking there were explosives. These are experts, my friend. I dare say it is shocking to you to see such a large building collapse. You are grasping at straws. You cannot handle the notion that fire is so powerful and that construction is so pitiful. You want buildings to be strong--so do I. I go into them under those conditions. You and your ilk proffering these claims are distracting us from real construction problems.

[quote]Apparently the fires at the IMPACT ZONE were controllable, NOT the blazing inferno that everyone now believes in with so much faith. [/quote]
"They all agreed on their primary objective, "to get as many people out of the building" as possible and "let it burn up,...we ain't putting this fire out." " ibid.

Had the fires been controllable, FDNY would have controlled them because nopt doing so was giving up on those above the fire. Your statement, hopefully unwittingly, says FDNY donated lives. We in the fire service do "donate property" in an attempt to get ahead of it. We do not donate lives. The best way to save lives is to suppress the fire. That's what we do in high rises to save those above the fire. FDNY did not mount a fire attack in an attempt to extinguish the fire because it was not deemed possible. Whoever offered you this information deserves a sound punch to the nose.

[quote]The "inferno theory" is false on its face, because there were at least two people photographed INSIDE the impact zone who were unharmed. Those people would not have been able to survive where they were standing if the temperatures at the impact zone were hot enough to damage the steel framing. Their skin would have melted. And the people who jumped, jumped because of the toxic smoke, not intense heat as was believed. They couldn't BREATHE.
[/quote]

Smoke is plenty hot, first of all. It takes heat to produce it. Where are the photos? Who are these people? And this proves little if you've any experience in search and rescue, since at the floor level, it is sometimes tenable. Total involvement could have been absent in impact zones with intense fire in other areas. All it would prove was that in that area, there was a tenable atmosphere.

[quote]The steel frame was VASTLY over-engineered; some sections possessing 2000% extra load-bearing strength. One of the construction reports states that you could have knocked out WHOLE FLOORS worth of trusses and the buildings would have remained standing in over 100 mile an hour winds.
[/quote]

Which report? Where is it? I've seen construction reports describing fire walls that were not true fire walls. Contractors aren't angels, my friend.

"pictures of the WTC's large open floor spaces clearly showing the lightweight bar joist floors." ibid.

"lightweight concrete and bar-joist floors" ibid.

a 100 foot steel beam will expand 9 1/2 inches when heated to 1000 degrees. at 1500 degrees, it will sag. Common office furniture can burn at 1300 or more degrees, with ceiling temperatures at or above this. Add the air flow from an elevated position with openings made by a jet. Less ventilated warehouse roofs under less load than the floors of WTC regularly collapse in early stages of fires.

Shock loads are far worse than dead loads. A floor collapsing on another is a shock load.

Welds hold joints. they don't help sagging joists. I've seen intact but failed structural members.

Pre WWII buildings were overengineered. Newer buildings are not because wer have a better idea of how much we can get away with.

[quote]And why in the HECK does the top section of the tower (I forget which one) DESINTIGRATE in mid-air after falling off the building?! And if the top fell off, why does the building continue to annihilate itself at the same speed as the falling top section?
[/quote]

I see it disappear into the dust and smoke. The bottom is striking the lower floors. Impact hurts objects. The top cause the bottom to fall, and each successive fall cause the next. It makes sense they would fall at the same rate. Also, falling objects fall at the same speed. There's nothing about lower floors that would make them fall faster.

[quote]Something had to break apart the central support columns. Pancaking should have left the central support structure mostly intact. BUT THE WHOLE FREAKIN BUILDING CAME DOWN...! The only way that could have happened was if the central core system was being broken up by explosives, AT THE RATE OF FREE FALL.
[/quote]

Fire is completely capable of breaking down the support strength to the point of collapse. WTC 1 and 2 were not curtain wall construction, so the damage to the outer supports from impact would have placed a greater load on interior members. The interior members were further weakened by heat--greater load, less capacity to support load. Weight of floors above the impact area striking, weight of floors pulling...plenty to pull down interior of building.

Core construction relates not to support columns, but to service placement, allowing for large floor spaces. Putting elevators, bathrooms, stairs, in the center is core construction.
[quote]
When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

[/quote]

[quote]In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall.

[/quote]
[url="http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html"]Vincent Dunn webpage about collapse[/url]

Please read this. Vincent Dunn is a NY firefighter. After commenting on this fire, you owe it to me and all other firefighters to read this. He's one of my heroes, and he's been preaching the problems of lightweight construction for years. He's a great man, and one of my brother firefighters.

[Winchester]

Heiro,

I have to slightly disagree (perhaps)

I think smoke color (and intensity) is reliable enough to make several tactical decisions.

Thick black smoke violently moving out of the building does indicate a significant fire, so you'd need the highest flow practical from your handlines. You'd also want horizontal or vertical ventilation as soon as possible.

I think we can hijack this thread into a fire tactics discussion, don't you?

[Desert Walker]

I admit I'm no "expert" on any of this stuff.

But riddle me this:

Why are there over NINE separate explosions that can be heard echoing all the way over to Hoboken while the towers are burning?

?

Why has no one explained that fact?

Why after the first of these explosions is huge cloud of smoke seen rising from the base of the towers on the streets of lower Manhatten?

How do 12 foot high floors collapse on each other at a rate of 10 floors per SECOND?

How does a fire near the top of these buildings break up the core support system on ALL FLOORS?

Ya'll really should watch this video:

[url="http://documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.442"]http://documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/con...php?content.442[/url]

Socrates,

Ad hominem attacks about what you believe to be my hysterical "conspiracism" do not answer any of the questions that so many rational people have about the events of September 11, 2001.

But if it comforts you, I won't respond to your references about alien abductions and the like. SO i'll neither dispel nor confirm such suspicions. That way you can continue feeling secure in your belief that I'm a kook.

Believing that government conspiracies such as the one I am considering here are impossible doesn't make their possibility go away, no matter how hard you believe it.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Socrates' post='990684' date='May 25 2006, 06:32 PM']
With all due respect, Gore Vidal is a raving left-wing lunatic (as well as a militant homosexual and vehement anti-Christian). (He wrote a "funny" novel, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140231196/qid=1148606280/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"][i]Live from Golgotha : The Gospel According to Gore Vidal[/i][/url], mocking the Church, and portraying St. Paul and the early Church as flaming homosexuals.)

Why is the "knowledge" of this man "imperative"? What hidden secrets does he possess?
[/quote]

So now sexual orientation has a negative effect on one's ability to think critically? In that case I'd say that, because there are so many raving heterosexual, alpha-male, Raving Right Wingers, heterosexuality apparently undoes one's ability to think critically as well.

Vidal is not a "leftist." Try reading some of his political essays. You obviously have not yet done so, because you call him a "leftist." His views on Christianity are irrelevant here.

[quote]
(And what has George W. Bush gained personally by blowing up the WTC according to you? How has it enriched him?)[/quote]

If you think that pole numbers are the major concern of men like Bush, then it would be very difficult to explain what his motives would be, and the benefits for doing so.

[quote]
Besides, we all know the interdimensional space lizards are behind all this with their Reptilian Agenda.
Read [url="http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/"]David Ickes[/url]. His knowledge is imperative.
[/quote]

Ad hominem. You have no verification that I take this guy seriously. Whom I've never heard of until just now reading your post. Believing that conspiracy theories can be dismissed by referring to absurdities like "reptillians" is just intellectually dishonest!

[quote]
(And btw, Winchester is a professional fireman. He knows what he's talking about.)
[/quote]

Awesome.

[Winchester]

[quote]Why are there over NINE separate explosions that can be heard echoing all the way over to Hoboken while the towers are burning?
[/quote]

If these explosions occured in the basement, the command crews located in the ground floor lobby would have evacuated. They did not. Acoustics such as they are, and panic (try explaining to a homeowner you took four minutes to respond when he thinks it was fifteen) being what it is, I will rely on those who reacted as they react at countless emergencies.


[quote]Why after the first of these explosions is huge cloud of smoke seen rising from the base of the towers on the streets of lower Manhatten?
[/quote]

Again, tactics were not altered. If indeed this happened on september 11 instead of film from the previous attack, I should point out jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts.

[quote]How do 12 foot high floors collapse on each other at a rate of 10 floors per SECOND?

How does a fire near the top of these buildings break up the core support system on ALL FLOORS?
[/quote]
You must not have read the article. You must not understand the nature of collapse, the forces incvolved, the weight of the upper 30+ stories, etcetera.
The upper floors broke apart the bottom floors. That's the very nature of the collapse. I'll watch the video, but you need to read Vincent Dunn.
How many non-conspiracy professionally taught building construction and collapse classes have you attended? I've done more than my share of conspiracy research--too many are fond of making up what they don't know.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='990917' date='May 26 2006, 07:42 AM']
If these explosions occured in the basement, the command crews located in the ground floor lobby would have evacuated. They did not. Acoustics such as they are, and panic (try explaining to a homeowner you took four minutes to respond when he thinks it was fifteen) being what it is, I will rely on those who reacted as they react at countless emergencies.

Again, tactics were not altered. If indeed this happened on september 11 instead of film from the previous attack, I should point out jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts.[/quote]

Jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts over and over again? I thought that was supposed to have happened when the planes hit... once.

There were a lot of loud noises, and a lot of activity going on, and they were trying to plan, re-plan and execute a rescue operation on the ground level of a massive building. And I seriously don't think they would have fled the scene without orders to do so, which, when they were given after the first tower came down, were obeyed.

[quote]
You must not have read the article. You must not understand the nature of collapse, the forces incvolved, the weight of the upper 30+ stories, etcetera.[/quote]

No, but I will. I've been doing an un-biased review of material for both conspiracy theories: the one given to us by our government and the one given by the so-called "conspiracy theorists." Why can't the 911 Commission be labeled "a crowd of conspiracy theorists?"

BTW: I often wonder why conspiracy theories are labeled "kooky" until the government says otherwise; and why the average citizen can't label the government's stories "kooky" without being labeled "kooky."

[quote]
The upper floors broke apart the bottom floors. That's the very nature of the collapse. I'll watch the video, but you need to read Vincent Dunn.[/quote]

Yeah, I KNOW THAT EXPLANATION. It hasn't been proven beyond doubt. Primarily because the government ordered the complete and immediate removal of the very thing that could have confirmed it beyond doubt: the pile of wreckage.

But I'll read Dunn's stuff of course.

[quote]
How many non-conspiracy professionally taught building construction and collapse classes have you attended?[/quote]

None. I'm just asking questions like the other "kooks." No one's giving good answers. And YES, there are answers I WOULD accept as good. Don't pay too much attention to Wikipedia's description of "conspiracism." It makes the same mistake that people make in the "liberal vs. conservative" debate: a label doesn't fully describe a person. It never can.

[quote]
I've done more than my share of conspiracy research--too many are fond of making up what they don't know.
[/quote]

Okay.... I'm aware of that. Why do you naturally assume that I'm unwilling to consider everything just because I'm challenging the "OFFICIAL STORY?"

-------

Oh watch out everybody!! Here comes

THE ONE!

THE ONLY!

THE OFFICIAL STORY!

BOW DOWN IN AWE BEFORE THE THROWN OF THE GLORIOUS EXPERTS!

Don't worry! They work for the highly trustworthy Imperial Federal Government of the United States! They only desire to inform you of the BEST truth that can possibly be considered!

(pardon my sarcasm)

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Winchester' post='990782' date='May 25 2006, 10:18 PM']
Thick black smoke violently moving out of the building does indicate a significant fire, so you'd need the highest flow practical from your handlines. You'd also want horizontal or vertical ventilation as soon as possible.[/quote]
What if it were white or gray smoke violently moving out of the building? Seriously, seeking your prof opinion there. I hear so many cite the black smoke in WTC as a sure indication of a low temp, dying fire that did not have the capacity to weaken steel. [And I'd go vertical first to aid entry, unless there were a reason not to - but my experience is mainly wildfire, with some rural protection during the off-season along side "surround & drown" volunteer outfits , all during college days 10 years ago. I don't remember everything, and never knew all that much about urban stuff with more than three floors.]

[quote name='Winchester' post='990782' date='May 25 2006, 10:18 PM']
I think we can hijack this thread into a fire tactics discussion, don't you?
[/quote]
While that would be fun for me, I think it would amount to me coughing up rust and dust from my past and you correcting everything. I think I'll spare you the typing exercise and everyone else the anguish.

[Winchester]

[quote]Jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts over and over again? I thought that was supposed to have happened when the planes hit... once.
[/quote]

Explosions caused by heat and fire take time. Successive explosions would not have been out of the ordinary. About four years ago, I was at a fire at a composites plant. The product was stored in barrels, and the warehouse was heavily involved. Barrels exposed to fire gave at differing times--and the accompanying fire and noise was more or less impressive depending, but the detonations took place over a period of hours, each one separately.

Again, I seriously doubt these explosions occured.

[quote]There were a lot of loud noises, and a lot of activity going on, and they were trying to plan, re-plan and execute a rescue operation on the ground level of a massive building. And I seriously don't think they would have fled the scene without orders to do so, which, when they were given after the first tower came down, were obeyed[/quote]

It was the command staff. They give the orders. And yes, when you hear a boom, your officers and you can and will evacuate prior to orders. That's why fire companies have officers in them--to give orders based on tactical and task level knowledge.

Most of the banging you hear on the videos are bodies striking the ground. They're loud when they hit with that much momentum.

[quote]Yeah, I KNOW THAT EXPLANATION. It hasn't been proven beyond doubt. Primarily because the government ordered the complete and immediate removal of the very thing that could have confirmed it beyond doubt: the pile of wreckage.
[/quote]
The wreckage was removed because it was a rescue/recovery operation. Mostly recovery. Computer models are advanced enough to recreate the collapse.

[quote]None. I'm just asking questions like the other "kooks." No one's giving good answers. And YES, there are answers I WOULD accept as good. Don't pay too much attention to Wikipedia's description of "conspiracism." It makes the same mistake that people make in the "liberal vs. conservative" debate: a label doesn't fully describe a person. It never can.
[/quote]

Excuse me? I've given very good answers, and not based upon the 9-11 report. Nor were the two firefighter's I've cited giving reports from the 9-11 report. They're speaking from experience--one was a commander at the incident!

[quote]Okay.... I'm aware of that. Why do you naturally assume that I'm unwilling to consider everything just because I'm challenging the "OFFICIAL STORY?"
[/quote]

Actually, you are closer in your belief in the structural strength of the WTC to the "official story" than I am. Your beliefs strengthen the position of modern architecture, which is not built with the same safety factors as before. Cheaper materials, tighter tolerances. Like a competition pistol: it can't handle combat, but it's damnably accurate.

[quote]BOW DOWN IN AWE BEFORE THE THROWN OF THE GLORIOUS EXPERTS!

Don't worry! They work for the highly trustworthy Imperial Federal Government of the United States! They only desire to inform you of the BEST truth that can possibly be considered!
[/quote]

I believe I've been quite civil to you. I have been honest, and I have not vomited up information gained from a few minutes or even hours perusal of the internet. I have used my eight years of experience (not much, I'll grant you) in responding. I have quoted experts--as I believe you have claimed to do as well. Neither of my cited sources are federal employees. Both are New York firemen, both are chief officers.

FYI: I firmly believe in conspiracies. I find it within the realm of possibility that Roos overlooked intelligence to permit the attack on Pearl Harbor, that MLK and MAlcolm X were assassinated by the Nation of Islam or perhaps the government, and the Oswald may not have acted alone.

I merely reject the notion of secondary devices planted at the WTC as ridiculous because of my professional knowledge, which is easily accesible to anyone bothering to do the research.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Winchester' post='989567' date='May 24 2006, 12:46 PM']February 1991 at One Meridian Plaza, a serious fire that killed three [s]firfighters[/s], a structural engineer warned there was a [s]pissiiblity[/s] of collapse. (11 hour fire) The building did not collapse, but it was torn down due to the damage inflicted. It was a collapse hazard. Other buildings of more heavy weight construction have been exposed to similar stresses and not needed demolition.[/quote]
[color="red"][b]firefighters[/b][/color]

[color="red"][b]possibility[/b][/color]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990882' date='May 26 2006, 06:38 AM']
So now sexual orientation has a negative effect on one's ability to think critically? In that case I'd say that, because there are so many raving heterosexual, alpha-male, Raving Right Wingers, heterosexuality apparently undoes one's ability to think critically as well.

Vidal is not a "leftist." Try reading some of his political essays. You obviously have not yet done so, because you call him a "leftist." His views on Christianity are irrelevant here.[/quote]
My point is that Gore Vidal can hardly be considered a rational and unbiased source. He is an anti-religious liberal, and has long fought against conservatives, calling them "crypto-Nazis." He is a man with an agenda, and appears to thrive on outrageousness and controversy, and such a person should not be considered a reliable authority in this matter.
You have given no reason why Vidal's opinion should be trusted over anyone else's on this matter. Is he privy to something that others are not regarding 9-11?

[quote]If you think that pole numbers are the major concern of men like Bush, then it would be very difficult to explain what his motives would be, and the benefits for doing so.[/quote]
Why should they not be? Bush is a politician afterall. If his popularity continues to sink, his political opponents will likely be in power, and Bush will have accomplished nothing. You have yet to explain what Bush gained from all this.

[quote]Ad hominem. You have no verification that I take this guy seriously. Whom I've never heard of until just now reading your post. Believing that conspiracy theories can be dismissed by referring to absurdities like "reptillians" is just intellectually dishonest!
[/quote]
That was a joke, dude! I never claimed you take him seriously. My point was simply that one can find people who claim all kinds of crazy stuff.

Winchester and others have given good answers about the Towers.

Get off the internet, get away from the computer, get some fresh air, find a hobby, take up a sport. Forget about this conspiracy theory craziness.

[Era Might]

George Bush doesn't like black people.

[Winchester]

Lil Red.

you're not helping.

and that's my schtick.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Socrates' post='991273' date='May 26 2006, 07:20 PM']
My point is that Gore Vidal can hardly be considered a rational and unbiased source. He is an anti-religious liberal, and has long fought against conservatives, calling them "crypto-Nazis." He is a man with an agenda, and appears to thrive on outrageousness and controversy, and such a person should not be considered a reliable authority in this matter.[/quote]

I agree, such a person shouldn't. I don't agree that Vidal is a controversialist. Ann Coulter and Madonna do that kind of thing better than anyone. Vidal is an intellectual with a point of view. And he's very up front and open about his point of view. But the unique thing is how well he can articulate his point of view. It's easy to understand. He doesn't beat around the bush, unlike many who try to deceptively coerce their readers into believing something about their position that isn't true to increase their readership. How many people read Vidal? Not many I assure you. He doesn't pander enough.

Who should be considered a reliable authority in this matter? A person who has a bias for the mundane and unimportant details? A right wing-bias? A left-wing bias? Or a bias for the utterly grand and totally unblemished history of our government's moral integrity? I'm sorry, I refuse to allow myself the comfort of blind trustfulness of those who have power over me and my fellow Americans. They haven't given me a good reason to trust them. They've given plenty of reasons to distrust them (unless you're a biased conservative republican or a biased liberal democrat).

[quote]
You have given no reason why Vidal's opinion should be trusted over anyone else's on this matter. Is he privy to something that others are not regarding 9-11?[/quote]

The answer to that question is "no" in one way (information), and yes in another way (opinion). Vidal's opinion about 911 is not tainted by the obvious bias coming from our government and most of the US news and opinion outlets. The mainstream likes to view that event as an act of war against this country necessitating the mobilization of US war machine worldwide. Vidal doesn't view it that way. And it's not because he's a leftist (he isn't anyway). He IS a fan of a non-global US sphere of influence.

Mark my words Socrates, the so-called "War on Terror" is going to result in a global hatred for Islam itself (if this is not already the case). If we don't withdraw ALL of our "coercive forces" BACK to the US mainland, we are going to be the most despised people on the face of the planet. This "war on terror" is going to cause more problems than it will solve. The UN is supposed to police the world, not US.

His opinion should be considered because he is knowledgeable and is a good writer. But the most important reason his opinion should be considered is that people from both the right AND the left would vehemently disagree with him on some issues. In this sense (and I say only in THIS sense) he is similar to Pope John Paul II. If you are a right-wing conservative or a left-wing liberal, you would find that he doesn't fully support all of your intellectual positions. Since that quality is largely missing from public debate these days, I find it refreshing to have found someone who is intellectually capable of challenging that status quo.

How many of Gore Vidal's political essays have you actually read Socrates? [i]Dreaming War[/i] would be a good start. It contains a collection of them.

[quote]Why should they not be? Bush is a politician afterall. If his popularity continues to sink, his political opponents will likely be in power, and Bush will have accomplished nothing. You have yet to explain what Bush gained from all this.[/quote]

Look man, if you haven't seen the truth, ON YOUR OWN, about American Presidential administrations yet, then you're unlikely to take me seriously when I tell you what it is. But I will anyway. They are controlled by interest groups, some of whom are very wealthy, very powerful, transnational corporate leaders. It is those very wealthy, very powerful folks that men like Bush are most interested in helping. But what you have to come to realize is that an American president can only help these guys covertly, because he's supposed to be representing OUR interests only.

So they give us nice, patriotic stories about defending freedom in the world, while selling the navy's largest deep water port on the west coast to the People's Republic of China (far from a defender of freedom itself). Look it up. But they don't care what an extremely wealthy nation like CHina does to its people, because WEALTHY nations (Lucifer worshipping or otherwise) are US business partners.

Believe me, Bush won't be hurting for money when he finally leaves the White House, because his foreign policy has been primarily about making the Middle-East secure for transnational business. He and his friends will be loaded. And since most of the DOD leadership is behind this kind of thing 100% no investigation will ever touch our illustriously crooked, traitorous politicians.

They use their power to ensure each-other's continued financial security in the global market.

[quote]That was a joke, dude! I never claimed you take him seriously. My point was simply that one can find people who claim all kinds of crazy stuff.[/quote]

Ok fine. But in a debate (especially on a forum) that kind of thing sounds ad hominem. Whenever a conspiracy theory is challenged by those who cannot condescend to even SLIGHTLY consider its factuality, they usually bring up references to some of the 100% unfounded ideas which can be found among the so-called "conspiracy crowd." I was just reacting based on past experiences.

[quote]Winchester and others have given good answers about the Towers.[/quote]

Yes, which I've read and am fully open to. But the material they've presented remains speculation without a thorough investigation into the ACTUAL events of that day. Our trustworthy government did no such thing and everybody who is sane agrees. One NY firefighters journal called it "a half-baked farce."

[quote]Get off the internet, get away from the computer, get some fresh air, find a hobby, take up a sport.
[/quote]

That's good advice in a way. I've been trying to find other things to do. But it's not like all I ever do is surf the web looking for stuff like this. I honestly find it unsettling that, merely because I decide to lead several threads on these kinds of topics, you assume I'm some kind of dolt. I admit I don't do many of the things that most people find interesting, but that's not because I choose to read about the things I DO find interesting.

If I could find the time to drive a couple of miles away from the city I would get back into astronomy, but I haven't found the time yet.

I appreciate your concern for my psychological well-being. But "current events" is an interest of mine. It has been for many years. Why should I limit my information sources to those which are "socially acceptable" and "socially correct?" What's wrong with assuming you're not getting the whole story? And I don't just arbitrarilly, and with drooling mouth , take seriously whatever web site comes up first on Google's list, such as our demented brother in Christ here:

[url="http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/satanism_in_the_vatican.htm"](be warned, this is pretty off the wall)[/url]

[quote]Forget about this conspiracy theory craziness.[/quote]

You obviously have far too much faith in the idea that conspiracies, of the kind in question, are an impossibility in American life. Apparently this very naive belief has evolved into a social dogma.

Just call me a heretic then.

[Winchester]

[quote]One NY firefighters journal called it "a half-baked farce."

[/quote]

Which journal, which edition, what author? I'd like to read it myself.


[quote]without a thorough investigation into the ACTUAL events of that day. Our trustworthy government did no such thing and everybody who is sane agrees[/quote]

And yet we've had several training sessions come out of these non-investigations, a National Incident Management System in part developed on knowledge gained from 9-11 attacks.



You err in your extremism--language and willingness to accept certain explanations over others. The latter is evident from your writing. If you have not accepted and internalized the extreme, then take a month or so and refine your writing skills because this is the impression you've left.

Honestly, no one thinks the government is not, at least in part, for sale. All governments are to greater or lesser degrees.

[Winchester]

I searched the net, finding some very funny articles.

One guy complained that jet fuel burns at 873 degrees. I'd have to look it up, but he then goes on to state definitively that such a temperature could not have damaged the steel to the point of collapse because pf the temperatures required to make steel soften. He forgets that office furniture burns as well and that cieling temperatures are regularly enough in warehouses to cause the collapse of similarly constructed roofs. He's uninformed, but authoritative.


I found the article. It came from Fire Engineering. It's a reputable international magazine, not a ny firefighter journal, and it is being chopped up to suit the conspiracy theorists.

[quote]Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history[/quote]

Fire-induced. Hmm. Not really what prison planet is looking for right?

I saw more than one article saying a fire trade magazine had said that burning jet fuel was not enough to bring down the towers. The articles then went on to discuss their bomb theories. What's the actual quote?

[quote]The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
[/quote]

I left in the last part because it's no problem for me to show it. I'm honest. I have actual professional knowledge from the span of my career and personal experience. We know lightweight construction, as used in WTC, does not stand up to fire load. An investigation would prove it, and that proof would be useful in making laws about construction. This would be motivation enough to avoid an in depth investigation into the collapse. If it got out with scientific proof that office bulding furnishings could produce enough heat to contribute to a high rise collapse, then things would change--and no construction company wants that. They already find ways to avoid putting in standpipes and other fire safety features. Every time I read first hand sources, I find the quotes in conspiracy articles to be partial and misleading, and their theories about structures laughable, ignorant.

Stupid.

Insane.

I believe in conspiracies. I don't follow every uninformed nabob or quote the quotes of supposed quotes without doing a little research. If you are going to the primary sources (it took me all of two minutes) it isn't showing in what you're putting here.

This is the same experience I have with anti-Catholics. They are generally uninformed, they quote each other with incestuous abandon, and they have a lack of regard for whole truths.

I am insulted. Truly insulted.

[url="http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=131225"]Fire engineering article[/url]

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='993174' date='May 30 2006, 05:30 PM']
And yet we've had several training sessions come out of these non-investigations, a National Incident Management System in part developed on knowledge gained from 9-11 attacks.[/quote]

That fact, as well as the "construction style" explanation, doesn't prove that the unorthodox explanations are completely false. That report on construction technique to which you referred me (written by the fire chief) is a good explanation. It almost makes everything crystal clear. If it wasn't for the fact that the destruction of the buildings, as seen on video, doesn't fit the pancake collapse theory I would completely disregard my suspicions. But I can't, because what happens on film seem to fit the official explanations.


[quote]You err in your extremism--language and willingness to accept certain explanations over others. The latter is evident from your writing. If you have not accepted and internalized the extreme, then take a month or so and refine your writing skills because this is the impression you've left.[/quote]

Ok. I stand corrected in that regard. But, to defend myself a little, I profer this to you: without a certain willingness to reject as false the "socially acceptable," "politically correct" and "universally official," I don't believe I would be able to critically examine this at all. I refuse to believe that ALL of the "unorthodox" ideas about 911 are completely untenable. I considered that possibility once, and then realized, after watching videos and looking at photographs, that it was a intellectually dishonest attitude.

[quote]
Honestly, no one thinks the government is not, at least in part, for sale. All governments are to greater or lesser degrees.[/quote]

Thank you for aknowledging that. Most people who believe the largely accepted story of 911 accuse people like me of being anti-American. They only do that because they confuse our nation's government (and its associate policies) with the nation itself.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='993204' date='May 30 2006, 06:11 PM']
I searched the net, finding some very funny articles.

One guy complained that jet fuel burns at 873 degrees. I'd have to look it up, but he then goes on to state definitively that such a temperature could not have damaged the steel to the point of collapse because pf the temperatures required to make steel soften. He forgets that office furniture burns as well and that cieling temperatures are regularly enough in warehouses to cause the collapse of similarly constructed roofs. He's uninformed, but authoritative.[/quote]

Were the temperatures great enough to completely MELT steel do you think? Have YOU ever seen a furniture/office/combustible materials fire turn steel in to liquid?

That's what happened on 911 at the WTC. There's a video of molten steel pouring out of one of the holes. The clean up crew found pools of molten steel beneath the wreckage, in the basement. Read Prof. Steven E. Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

[quote]I found the article. It came from Fire Engineering. It's a reputable international magazine, not a ny firefighter journal, and it is being chopped up to suit the conspiracy theorists.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought it was a national journal at first. I should have checked that. It probably IS being chopped up, but I would argue that fact is slightly unimportant given that very little has been proven definitively about the destruction of those buildings other than the fact that they were destroyed.

[quote]Fire-induced. Hmm. Not really what prison planet is looking for right?[/quote]

No. But what does it matter what the writer ASSUMES about the event? His conclusion is that the investigation was conducted in an absurd fashion. I would argue that was the government's intent. The writer seems to think the government is just incompetent (a possibility), but most likely they are too often intentionally incompetent for reasons of their own which they do not choose to share...

[quote]I saw more than one article saying a fire trade magazine had said that burning jet fuel was not enough to bring down the towers. The articles then went on to discuss their bomb theories.

What's the actual quote?[/quote]

I'm as curious as you are. More than likely the original source contains agreements with the official story. Such things shouldn't worry a conspiracy theorist, but they often do.

[quote]I left in the last part because it's no problem for me to show it. I'm honest. I have actual professional knowledge from the span of my career and personal experience. We know lightweight construction, as used in WTC, does not stand up to fire load. An investigation would prove it, and that proof would be useful in making laws about construction. This would be motivation enough to avoid an in depth investigation into the collapse. If it got out with scientific proof that office bulding furnishings could produce enough heat to contribute to a high rise collapse, then things would change--and no construction company wants that. They already find ways to avoid putting in standpipes and other fire safety features. Every time I read first hand sources, I find the quotes in conspiracy articles to be partial and misleading, and their theories about structures laughable, ignorant.

Stupid.

Insane.[/quote]

Ok. That's a reasonable conclusion and observation. I think such experiments have already been done though and the results didn't help the official story... I'll have to check that.

[quote]I believe in conspiracies. I don't follow every uninformed nabob or quote the quotes of supposed quotes without doing a little research. If you are going to the primary sources (it took me all of two minutes) it isn't showing in what you're putting here.[/quote]

Ok.

[quote]This is the same experience I have with anti-Catholics. They are generally uninformed, they quote each other with incestuous abandon, and they have a lack of regard for whole truths.

I am insulted. Truly insulted.[/quote]

You're attacking my character without serious justification for doing so. All I did was bring this up. I'm sorry if I let my feelings get into this. You're right that I shouldn't have. But to accuse me of having little or no regard for whole truths lacks something to be desired on your part. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Maybe there are those out there who are. But all I've seen is a bunch of people whove noticed SEVERAL inconsistencies with the official story and are bothered by them.

I hope you don't think that is wrong!

Most people don't ask questions because they don't care. They just swallow what comes at them on TV and from their government as though there has never been a greater source of truth and honesty. It is easier for the powerful to lie and get away with it then it is for them to tell the truth and actually help people. Most of the time the majority of human beings can be completely fooled about what is actually taking place in the world.

If that isn't true, how did Hitler ever become so powerful? Nearly all of his public addresses contained fabrication, dishonesty, deception, manipulation and coercion, all based on theories of group psychology. This is historical fact. And I am convinced we're having the wool pulled over eyes again for purposes chillingly similar to Hitler's.

BTW, did you see that video to which I linked?

Edited May 31, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Winchester]

[quote]If it wasn't for the fact that the destruction of the buildings, as seen on video, doesn't fit the pancake collapse theory I would completely disregard my suspicions. [/quote]

How does it not fit a pancake collapse? Would that it did not, I would feel a lot safer at work.


[quote]
Were the temperatures great enough to completely MELT steel do you think? Have YOU ever seen a furniture/office/combustible materials fire turn steel in to liquid?
[/quote]

No, but I have seen them precipitate collapse in steel buildings, and I've read the training material on avoding being caught in those collapses.

[quote]That's what happened on 911 at the WTC. There's a video of molten steel pouring out of one of the holes. The clean up crew found pools of molten steel beneath the wreckage, in the basement. Read Prof. Steven E. Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
[/quote]

Forgive my doubt, having seen so much footage. Haven't heard of any of this, and I would think it would have been mentioned. I'll try to look for Jones's paper.


[quote]You're attacking my character without serious justification for doing so. [/quote]

I'm sorry, I meant to attack the character of your sources. You're merely a person looking for truth being victimized by imbeciles and cads. A true conspiracy theorist is skeptical of all explanations and realizes that counterintelligence includes putting out inanr theories intentionally.


[/quote]But all I've seen is a bunch of people whove noticed SEVERAL inconsistencies with the official story and are bothered by them[quote]

That's because the official story is designed to protect (in part) shoddy building practices.


I am afraid that my attempt to watch the video was unsuccesful. Perhaps it's my broken wing computer.