http://youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&feature=related

i never thought it was an inside job

4/9/2008 3:00:39 PM

Hahaha...

"Radio host" Alex Jones is portrayed as an expert in structural physics.
















You want me to go on?

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 3:09 PM. Reason : ...LOL]

4/9/2008 3:08:23 PM

Alex Jones is borderline crazy

4/9/2008 3:15:58 PM

hey can we discuss the facts presented. i really don't care to discuss alex jones.

4/9/2008 3:19:19 PM

What facts are you looking for us to debunk?

I already gave you the first one for free. Alex Jones is not an expert on structural physics.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 3:22:23 PM

it's obvious there was a lot of bullshit behind 9/11 the government is just straight-up lying about

There's way too much proof

4/9/2008 3:23:52 PM

How does that imply that it was an inside job?

Help me here.

4/9/2008 3:27:22 PM

There were explosives in the building, were they built with a self-destruct button?

Come on, get your heads ouf of your asses

They are lying to us

4/9/2008 3:31:42 PM

Sure. They're lying to us.

How does that imply it was an inside job?

You're making a leap without showing your work.

4/9/2008 3:33:10 PM

I'm not even going to get into it. There's plenty of proof all over the place.

4/9/2008 3:36:17 PM

Then this topic should be moved to Chit Chat. Or the Lounge.

We've already "got into it" with a certain infamous Warrior Class NWO resistor in The Soap Box. Unless you or anyone else have something to add or amend to his heaping load of garbage, or are willing to substantiate your argument for an inside job, this section is inappropriate for the topic.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 3:43 PM. Reason : WATCH THAT FLUORIDATED WATER]

4/9/2008 3:42:37 PM

4/9/2008 3:44:57 PM

can't watch the video at work, but i assume this has something to do with the WTC being brought down by a controlled demolition or something?
If so, this has been thoroughly debunked dozens of times in the past 6 years.
Popular Mechanics, for one, did a very good job examining the various 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

if you want a more sarcastic view, watch this video
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories

4/9/2008 3:47:43 PM

LOL, ok

The female narrator just said "Building 7 was outfitted with a generator, water, and other supplies for the mayor's emergency bunker... yet, the mayor sought emergency coverage elsewhere. Why?"


WELL PERHAPS EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT IS BURNING AND ASHE IS EVERYWHERE AND THEY EVACUATED PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE AREA? NO THAT COULDN'T BE IT.

4/9/2008 3:57:12 PM

just asnwer/debunk these questions then

1.steel melts at 2700 degrees. jet fuel burns at a max of 1700 degrees. how did the steal melt? (yes molten steel pools were found, thats what "caused the collapse"

2.the buildings free fell directly into their shell. if there was resistance from lower floors (as claimed) the buildings would not have collapsed with a free fall speed

3.these are the only three steel buildings ever to collapse to due to fire. how did 47 story building 7 collapse when its only damage was from small fires caused by flying debris? the building was structurely intact just before it collapsed

4.white smoke can be seen coming from the base of the building just before collapse. several firefighters and people on the live coverage said they heard several explosions in the lower floors just before the collapse. are all these people just lying?

5.it was reported on several live tvs that a secondary device was found in hte tower just before the collapse. nothing else was ever heard of this. just a journalism mistake?

i'm not saying it was an inside job but why is all this stuff being hidden?

4/9/2008 4:05:17 PM

Quote :

"why is all this stuff being hidden?"

How is anything being hidden? All five things you listed can be (and have been) explained by well understood physical phenomenon and erroneous eyewitness accounts.

4/9/2008 4:32:00 PM

Howard, this is the first thing I really came to TSB and got owned on. It wasn't an inside job. There are some fishy things but that's mostly because the people you're listening to right now are withholding more information from you than the government did.

1-2. It didn't have to melt for it to collapse. It just had to weaken the integrity enough to not support the buildings anymore. The collapse happened in the middle of the building so there were some 30-odd stories collapsing on top of that which makes it look like free fall.

3. There's a good picture of building 7 with HUGE plumes of black smoke absolutely pouring out of it that Alex Jones doesn't show you. That combined with the other buildings falling down was enough to bring this one down too.

4. This is one of the fishy things but there is no proof of any foul play here. You just can't do something like this without proof.

5. Once again, no proof.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions but there's absolutely no proof of anything. I'm not saying that I'm 100% completely sure what happened, but the only reason you think there might be a conspiracy is because this Alex Jones person is keeping just as much information from you as anyone else.

4/9/2008 4:49:50 PM

I've always wondered what fantastic covert-demolitions team managed to wire both entire buildings (and apparently building 7 as well) overnight (in the "city that never sleeps no less), without anyone in any of the buildings noticing them, or evidence of their work inside the buildings being visible. (You know, det cord wrapped around columns, visible explosives... and I suppose we could get into the impossibility of getting an entire demolition crew to sign off on a job that size without any information or proof ever leaked.)

Incidentally, there's much more substantial information suggesting government coverups of alien spacecraft than 9-11 as an inside job.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 4:52 PM. Reason : Project Mayhem perhaps? ]

4/9/2008 4:51:32 PM

Quote :

"just asnwer/debunk these questions then 1.steel melts at 2700 degrees. jet fuel burns at a max of 1700 degrees. how did the steal melt? (yes molten steel pools were found, thats what "caused the collapse" 2.the buildings free fell directly into their shell. if there was resistance from lower floors (as claimed) the buildings would not have collapsed with a free fall speed 3.these are the only three steel buildings ever to collapse to due to fire. how did 47 story building 7 collapse when its only damage was from small fires caused by flying debris? the building was structurely intact just before it collapsed 4.white smoke can be seen coming from the base of the building just before collapse. several firefighters and people on the live coverage said they heard several explosions in the lower floors just before the collapse. are all these people just lying? 5.it was reported on several live tvs that a secondary device was found in hte tower just before the collapse. nothing else was ever heard of this. just a journalism mistake? i'm not saying it was an inside job but why is all this stuff being hidden?"

ill play...but only for a minute...(the obvious stuff I will respond to as a Budlight commercial)

1. the steel didnt have to melt, only weaken as it does when heated. the weight of the building on the weaker steel caused the collapse.

2. dude

3. no it wasnt, by most accounts it had been SEVERELY structurally damaged from both flying debris, concrete and steel, but also by the earthquake-type conditions of the ground shaking under it.

4. dude

5. yes. do you have any idea how long it would take to wire buildings such as these for demolition? how many hundreds of people would be involved? there would have been multiple secondary devices discovered. it was likely a mistake by the media (*gasp*) looking for the story - OHIO for Gore!!

4/9/2008 4:53:34 PM

Believe me, Howard, I have a very open mind. Check out that alien thread. Or make it through this:

Really now. I don't understand how such transparently obvious bullshit ends up repeated by so many people without being properly refuted:

Quote :

"1.steel melts at 2700 degrees. jet fuel burns at a max of 1700 degrees. how did the steal melt? (yes molten steel pools were found, thats what "caused the collapse""

Steel doesn't have to melt to buckle.

I don't mean to be insulting, but that's basic physics.

You go to NC State University, right? Any student or alum who's taken a 200 level Physics class could figure this out.

Quote :

"2.the buildings free fell directly into their shell. if there was resistance from lower floors (as claimed) the buildings would not have collapsed with a free fall speed"

I'm going to try tackling this differently than I have in the past.

Please explain how the Twin Towers should have fallen. I'm a very visual person. I'd like to understand exactly how it is that you think they should have fallen other than the way they actually fell.

Believe me. We've all seen the videos.

How do the Twin Towers fall when it's not a controlled demolition (hypothetically speaking)?

I'm all about contrast and relief. You're the one making an extraordinary claim.

My reply to this is simple: Gravity pulls the same way on a legally demolished building it does an illegally demolished building.

More specifically, when bombs explode a Casino or Hotel or when buildings collapse due to the loss of their structural integrity due to heat stresses that weakened the steel beams followed some minor explosions probably more related to a combination of air pressure and exploding gas cooking devices in kitchens in the already-collapsing WTC, the center of mass/gravity remains in the same place and will represent the "direction" of the freefall.

That's why they look the same. Period.

Quote :

"3.these are the only three steel buildings ever to collapse to due to fire. how did 47 story building 7 collapse when its only damage was from small fires caused by flying debris? the building was structurely intact just before it collapsed"

::yawn::

There's a first for everything. And steel isn't adamantium, Wolverine.

Also, the Twin Towers were also structurally intact before they collapsed. Let's not forget the oft-cited "OMF NWO COSPIRACAAAAY" evidence that the WTC was designed for air collisions like those that happened. All three buildings were structurally intact, but greatly weakened, "before they collapsed."

Quote :

"4.white smoke can be seen coming from the base of the building just before collapse. several firefighters and people on the live coverage said they heard several explosions in the lower floors just before the collapse. are all these people just lying?"

Cite and we'll address. What's the seismic evidence on this suggest? Does any exist? What portion do those several you cite make up of the number of reasonably proximate witnesses to the event who don't remember anything like you described?

Also, note the phenomena known as time dilation. Folks experience and remember things differently during traumatic events. The order of memory in an intense situation doesn't always line up with the facts. Until you admit this, we're going to have a bad time.

Quote :

"5.it was reported on several live tvs that a secondary device was found in hte tower just before the collapse. nothing else was ever heard of this. just a journalism mistake?"

Do you watch the news at all? Or do you only pay attention when it's related to tinfoil hat shit? Of course it was probably a journalism mistake.

Or do you want to act like a car bomb really went off at the Pentagon? I watched MSNBC report that exact event live on air. I won't even bother to look it up because I know they did. I remember it vividly. But guess what? Never happened.

The news fucks up all the time.

And they definitely can't keep anything straight in coverage of an emergency. Each network wants to scoop the other with the latest bombshell of horror and destruction. So they go to print with the most awful, unsubstantiated bullshit first and only retract later, when no one's looking. Witness Iraq. Or Hurricane Katrina.

Quote :

"i'm not saying it was an inside job but why is all this stuff being hidden?"

It's not.

True talk: I think conspiracies are real.

There, I said it.

Look at me, a tinfoil hat nutter (to some extent anyway). Surprise!

Most libertarians probably figured this out years ago.

But really, is anything you mentioned being hidden?

Does any of it actually matter?

We await more information on the fourth point, but as yet, even your own presentation of the "conspiracy POV" reeks of intellectual laziness. Part of me is convinced that you've been victimized by a highly effective disinformation campaign parodying conspiracy theorists by organizing them to constantly repeat the same obvious, uninformed bullshit about 9/11.

Any asshole with a YouTube account and media program asks a bunch of questions about logic because he slept through a few lessons back in high school and makes a joke out of a very serious issue. (Seriously, I stop paying attention to anything when it portrays Alex Jones as an expert on anything by rule. Keep this rule of thumb.) Most of your questions didn't take any more than a high school course in syllogism and physics to answer.

A simpler, more compelling question to ask would be "why was it found to be of no significance who financed the operation by the 9/11 Commission?" Neither you, nor this video asked that question to my knowledge.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 5:01:33 PM

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm

Quote :

"Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=9Zh&q=convert+750+C+in+F&btnG=Search

750 C = 1382 F

1382 F < 1700 F

[/thread]

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:12 PM. Reason : >.<]

4/9/2008 5:08:14 PM

wow, 9/11 changes everything, including most peoples' sense of reasoning and logic.

Can I see a video of the plane hitting the world's most protected building please?

4/9/2008 5:10:23 PM

i'm glad Chaos found this, because he was much more tactful than i was going to be. But for anyone who has anything to say about fire melting steel, molten steel, steel bucking, whatever, this cannot be repeated enough:

Quote :

""Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC.""

4/9/2008 5:15:53 PM

^^ Of course not. Why would any government want to show you where and how to hit its strategic defensive nerve center?

Be reasonable.

You make a mockery of perfectly acceptable and healthy speculation when you go down these roads.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:19 PM. Reason : the government has every right to censor that kind of info]

4/9/2008 5:18:39 PM

Quote :

"Can I see a video of the plane hitting the world's most protected building please?"

Quote :

"You make a mockery of perfectly acceptable and healthy speculation when you go down these roads."

A sarcasm detector? That's a real useful invention.

4/9/2008 5:20:34 PM

Seriously terpball, even when I truly believed there might have been a conspiracy I would think about how many people would actually have to be in on it. It's a huge number and not something you can just skim over.

4/9/2008 5:21:36 PM

I can understand that steel weakens, but it doesn't MELT. A pool of molten steel was at ground zero after the collapse, which is why the fire burned on for an unusually long time.

Also free fall can only be reached when an object falls without resistence. with 60+ stories of solid unweakened steel below it should have taken at least 45 seconds for the building to collapse by the "domino effect" which is claimed to have happened. Instead the buildings both feel in about ten seconds which is not much more than it would have taken for the building to fall freely or unrestricted.

4/9/2008 5:22:14 PM

^ I should've known better than to ignore that. Melted steel at the base had more to do with friction than jet fuel. Again, basic physics.

Honkeyball: Well, let's look at the point. No, the government won't give you ALL of the footage they confiscated of the Pentagon being struck. Does that make it an inside job?

No. No. NO.


[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 5:22:46 PM

^ I assumed that the point was so obvious that it couldn't have possibly been brought up in seriousness. Did someone on the pro-inside job side bring it up?

It would appear so. **sigh**

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 5:27:01 PM

well said pentagon footage was released last year
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNfkej6YyeY

and theres no plane. it was probably traveling faster than the frame rate of the camera which is why theres no way you could have seen it. Just ask a physicist.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM. Reason : they found the plane wreckage in the pentagon too ]

4/9/2008 5:28:13 PM

Quote :

"which is why theres no way you would not have seen it"

You're saying, because it was traveling faster than the frame rate of the camera... that you certainly would have seen it?

4/9/2008 5:31:28 PM

Oh snap!

Let's see the math. Or a link to the math.

4/9/2008 5:31:53 PM

I'm not saying it was a 100% inside job, there there are way too many anomalies, strange coincidences, and blatant lies for me to believe some shit is being covered up.

4/9/2008 5:32:19 PM

Quote :

"A pool of molten steel was at ground zero after the collapse, which is why the fire burned on for an unusually long time. "

i have yet to see any actual evidence of this assertion, except for anecdotal evidence I think originating from one person.
Even given the intense fire and the energy from the collapse, I find it incredibly hard to believe there were "pools of molten steel" just laying around, and even harder to believe that nobody got it on camera or video.

Furthermore, even if there was - so what? Is that supposed to prove one way or another that a plane didn't bring the building down?

4/9/2008 5:32:50 PM

^^ That's where I think the majority of America agrees.

Strangely enough.

Everything after that, though. All bets are off.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 5:34:03 PM

At worst there was purposeful negligence by someone in the Bush administration to allow this to happen. There are a lot strange coincidences but the fact that so many people would have to be in on it tends to point me in the other direction.

^^ I would think that with jet fuel fires and all that debris on top, a makeshift furnace could easily have been formed causing the temperatures to be even higher than usual.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:36 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2008 5:34:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying it was a 100% inside job, there there are way too many anomalies, strange coincidences, and blatant lies"

come on terp - you've said as much about 5 times already, but you haven't provided anything to back up what you're claiming

4/9/2008 5:35:36 PM

Yes because its in the official report given to you by the government and approved by NIST. Its also in the report that there was a pool of molten steel and there are also SEVERAL firefighters that confirm this. Also a plane crash fire is about a thousand degrees too cold to melt steel. Also, I'm sure tons of people were excited and all had THE EXACT SAME hallucinations because they were scared right?

4/9/2008 5:36:38 PM

Now now now...don't get irrational on us. We've laid it out for you already. Go take a breather. Come back and read our comments without being all pissed off.

4/9/2008 5:41:32 PM

Quote :

"come on terp - you've said as much about 5 times already, but you haven't provided anything to back up what you're claiming"

Explain the extraordinary American Airlines put options by the bank once headed by a senior member of blackwater's administration (the bank was bought out, but still, STRANGE coincidence)

4/9/2008 5:42:44 PM

4/9/2008 5:45:49 PM

yeah...

4/9/2008 5:48:38 PM

Do you even know what a put is?

4/9/2008 5:51:17 PM

Quote :

"the bank was bought out, but still, STRANGE coincidence"

do you know what the definition of coincidence is?

4/9/2008 5:54:15 PM

Or how silly a statement that was to begin with?

Board members move around a lot. That's the nature of industry at the executive level.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 5:55 PM. Reason : nothing more to see here]

4/9/2008 5:54:56 PM

Quote :

"Do you even know what a put is"

yea, it's a common way to hedge risks when putting together or changing up your portfolio, you're banking on the stock going down pretty much.

Okay, take the blackwater admin out of the equation - you still don't think that's odd?

Sure you don't, it's completely normal for an extraordinary number of put options to appear in someone's portfolio 2 days and the day before 2 planes smash into buildings

4/9/2008 6:37:56 PM

Normal compared to...

You act like no one's ever successfully sold short before 9/11.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 7:04 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 7:03:11 PM

The gravitational potential energy released as the towers pancaked and fell to the ground probably provided the energy for the steel to melt. I think I saw a website calculating this before...

PE = mgh

I suppose the temperature of each floor must have increased as the pancaking continued, the further down the higher the temp.

1.) top floors detach from support structure as it colllapses.
2.) top floors fall 10' or so converting PE into Kinetic energy.
3.) those top floors hit the floor below, breaks structural support and converts some of that Kinetic energy into thermal energy (friction)
4.) return to 1.)

You can imagine that the temperature would increase dramatically as the towers fell in this way. Look at the dust that fell everywhere, most everything in the building was pulverized. That grinding and falling could account for the additional temperature needed for steel melting.

4/9/2008 7:15:11 PM

^ Far better than I could explain. I tried, but wasn't nearly as descriptive. "Friction" was the best I could muster.

FUCK.

*** ATTENTION: I HAVE TO ISSUE AN IMMEDIATE CORRECTION ***

MSNBC didn't report a car bomb at the Pentagon. I mistyped. Rereading, I recognized the mistake immediately. They reported a car bomb had exploded in D.C. I'm pretty sure other outlets reported it as well, but frankly, I haven't bothered doing any more than surface research on 9/11. Someone's probably YouTube'd it.

Now then...

Sure, I've seen Loose Change. But it struck me as a Discordian joke. It was even funny for a little while, in a dark sort of way. Those terrible flash videos about a missile hitting the Pentagon were the first I recall. Spare me those crocks of shit.

The 9/11 Commission Report leaves open enough questions -- even if for stupidly political, state secret-related, or otherwise less sinister reasons than direct involvement -- that the events of 9/11 should IMHO be restudied comprehensively. Even if to establish once and for all that IN FACT, 19 hijackers from a loosely-knit terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda, run by Osama Bin Laden, crashed four commercial airplanes into various targets and a field to further their strategic aims of establishing a Caliphate.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 7:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2008 7:24:35 PM

the sheer number of people (who would stand to make a ton of money) one would have to keep quiet for a conspiracy of this type basically eliminates any possiblity of a conspiracy, no matter how many conincedences you find.

4/9/2008 7:28:24 PM