# Building 7



## wayneL (27 November 2009)

Headline on the nightly news here in NZ - Architect has proof building 7 was a controlled demolition. Haven't heard the story yet...

...developing.


----------



## derty (27 November 2009)

Thanks Wayne, will be very interesting to hear about this. Building 7 falling down has never been satisfactorily explained as far as I can tell and was excluded from the scope of the 911 World Trade Centre investigation.  

There is also the BBC footage where they announce that building 7 had collapsed while it is still visible behind the reporter announcing the collapse. The announcement was 20 mins before the actual collapse.


----------



## Agentm (27 November 2009)

i know someone who was in that mess on that day, he walked out and got out..


when you live it you dont really get hooked up into the fantasy

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fire-not-a-government-plot-felled-third-tower-20091124-jhf8.html


----------



## prawn_86 (27 November 2009)

There were interviews with people after who said they made the decision to 'pull' the building because it was structurally unsound. In the industry to 
pull' something is to have a controlled demolition.

Cant remember where i saw it now, will do some digging


----------



## awg (27 November 2009)

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...mments/the_nist_the_real_9_11_truth_movement/


check the links in the first part of the attached blog

there is detailed reports and information about building No7


----------



## Krusty the Klown (27 November 2009)

derty said:


> There is also the BBC footage where they announce that building 7 had collapsed while it is still visible behind the reporter announcing the collapse. The announcement was 20 mins before the actual collapse.




Really, I haven't seen that.



prawn_86 said:


> There were interviews with people after who said they made the decision to 'pull' the building because it was structurally unsound. In the industry to
> pull' something is to have a controlled demolition.
> 
> Cant remember where i saw it now, will do some digging




It was in Loose Change or Zeitgeist.


----------



## derty (27 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Really, I haven't seen that.



Here you go: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/45067...ng_7_had_collapsed_20_minutes_before_it_fell/

Also quite a few youtube vids too, though the linked one above labels building 7. BBC claim is was just a mistake on the day, it may well be.


----------



## jono1887 (28 November 2009)

Wasn't building 7 some govt building holding some files belonging to FBI or some other set of acronyms that conveniently disappeared when it collapsed  And what happened to all the gold beneath the WTC?

Oh, and who were the people that shorted all the airline stocks that day... I want in on these terrorist activities :


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2009)

OK I saw the news report and interview. Nothing really new, just a reaffirmation of logic.

1/ No planes hit the building

2/ The building went down at freefall speed into its own footprint.

The architect stressed that if the building fell due to damage and fire, it would have buckled and fell over sideways and NOT straight down into the path of maximum resistance at freefall speed like it did.

They showed side by side footage of B7 and a similar building which was subject to a controlled demolition, in real time and slow motion, and there was no discernible different in the pattern of collapse.

There was also mention of evidence of hi-tech explosives in the rubble, but did not elaborate on this.

That was the crux of it.

The interesting thing to me is that it was on a prime-time news/current affairs program.


----------



## Judd (28 November 2009)

I'm not one for complex problems.  Prefer simpler conclusions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2009)

Agentm said:


> i know someone who was in that mess on that day, he walked out and got out..
> 
> 
> when you live it you dont really get hooked up into the fantasy
> ...






Judd said:


> I'm not one for complex problems.  Prefer simpler conclusions.
> 
> http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html




Noted:

But really creates more questions.

I'm not an engineer or physicist, so unqualified to comment with any authority, but the manner and speed in which it fell does not seem tie in with the NIST conclusion - in my very humble opinion.

I'm not drawing any conclusions of my own, but I don't believe the questions have been answered satisfactorily.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (28 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> The interesting thing to me is that it was on a prime-time news/current affairs program.




Very unusual indeed.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> The interesting thing to me is that it was on a prime-time news/current affairs program.




So was it a slow news day or are 'they' trying to slowly go public with it for whatever reason and 'test marketing' it in NZ to gague the public response in a small country?


----------



## Stan 101 (28 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> Noted:
> 
> but the manner and speed in which it fell does not seem tie in with the NIST conclusion - in my very humble opinion.




Wayne, what areas specifically about the NIST report don't you agree with?

At what speed would you expect a building to collapse after the floor below yields to the live load of a fail floor above? 

What was the mass per metre squared of the floor above that collapsed?

What was the velocity of the collapsed floor (ceiling height and gravity important here along with the answer to the question above to calculate force) when the floor below absorbed the load?

What is the ultimate /serviceability floor live load for US towers of that era?


Gravity does not play favourites. I think you find the answers to the questions above and it will go some way to answering most nay sayers in a rational and logical way.




cheers,


----------



## wayneL (28 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Wayne, what areas specifically about the NIST report don't you agree with?
> 
> At what speed would you expect a building to collapse after the floor below yields to the live load of a fail floor above?
> 
> ...



When I have some time, I'll try and find some qualified answers to those questions. I'm just saying it doesn't gel with my very basic understanding of physics etc.


----------



## Stan 101 (28 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> I'm just saying it doesn't gel with my very basic understanding of physics etc.




No offence mate, but the physics of why that building dropped are sound. I'm not going to recreate a first year engineering lecture here. All info will could be gleaned from respected web sites, no doubt.

The was a building collapse at the Riverside Golf Club in Adelaide a few years ago. The outcome was that a major girder carrying the majority of the roof failed at the external walls. To a layperson, the issue would be with the girder truss itself. No true, though.

The real reason for the roof collapse was the incorrect installation of the roof battens that most think only hold up the roof tiles.

The nails holding the battens in place were incorrectly installed. That's right 2 puny little nails per batten. Battens were also joined on the girder to allow the end of the flimsy little battens (50x38mm timber from memory) to split.

If this Riverside collapse was building 7 we would have the same conspiracy theories. The reason is generally people do not understand how all elements in a building must all work. One failure point changes the whole dynamics of the other related elements causing forces to pass through these members they were never designed to withstand. 
The issue compounds with each failing member and Boom! things fail.

In the Riverside collapse, the batten's fixings to the top members of the girder failed. One may simply expect that if this happened, maybe some tiles would drop; not true.
The job of the roof batten from a structural point of view is to restrain the top members of the girder. If those batten fixings fail, the girder's top members start to bend out of the vertical plane and the buckling goesa past the point of no return. Then people end up dead, unfortunately.

Grab a plastic ruler at the ends and try to push the two ends closer together. You get a buckling action. That is compression. Now try to pull the two ends of the ruler away from each other. You are adding tension. Get a good understanding of compressive and tensile strength and you are well on your way to understanding what would have gone wrong with building 7.

The reason I mentioned the Riverside collapse is due to its excellent demonstration of seemingly minor components failing to cause catastrophe.


Cheers,


----------



## inenigma (28 November 2009)

Go play some footy.  Do some gardening.  Have a couple of beers with mates.  Go sailing.

Get a grip.


----------



## Putty7 (28 November 2009)

If you want to poke around into 9-11, try and work out how a plane hit the pentagon and disapeared into thin air with no sign of fire, lol, JFK must be rolling in his grave.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (28 November 2009)

Building 7 contained CIA offices.

The explosives found in New York after 911 were Thermite and Nano-Thermite.

Thermite is manufactured by the US military and sold only to other country's military. It is not sold on the commercial market.

Nano-Thermite is also made by the US military and is not available to anybody else but the US military.

How does a building falling down by construction flaws yield these explosives?

An interesting piece of information: on 10th September 2001, the day before the "attacks", Donald Rumsfeld who was the Secretary of Defense at the time, gave a TV interview where he announced that $2.4 TRILLION in defence funding was gone and unaccounted for by the Pentagon.

Where did the projectile that hit the Pentagon the next day hit? The section of the Pentagon that held all the Defence accounting offices and records. And the US government won't release the video of the "projectile" actually hitting the building. 

Hmmmmm...... Coincidence?

All these facts are in the public domain.

And you wonder why conspiracy theories abound.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Hmmmmm...... Coincidence?
> 
> All these facts are in the public domain.
> 
> *And you wonder why conspiracy theories abound*.




The trick is in the twist.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 November 2009)

Yes there are still a lot of things that dont add up about that entire day if you ask me.

I think it is important to logically debate the issues so people question things instead of blindly following government spin, which we know is total lies most of the time (for every topic).


----------



## cuttlefish (28 November 2009)

Apparently Building 7 stored documents that contained irrevocable proof that the whole lunar landing was faked ...


----------



## Putty7 (28 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Yes there are still a lot of things that dont add up about that entire day if you ask me.
> 
> I think it is important to logically debate the issues so people question things instead of blindly following government spin, which we know is total lies most of the time (for every topic).




You are right Prawn, the ETS is another such event, unfortunately Australia is becoming like America, thinking is to hard, much easy to take what is being fed to you as right, "why would politicians lie" lol. 

John Howard spent a lot of time with the Yanks learning the tricks of the trade. The unfortunate thing is that a logical debate is not sort after by those in power as it often yields unfriendly results to those involved.

Anyway it's a moot point, they got their oil and allegedly destroyed a lot of stuff that will never see the light of day now, it's just surprising to see so many people who are willing to take things at face value even when so much evidence exists to dispell the stories they are being fed. 

You only have to look back through Americas history to get a picture of how far the imagination can be stretched in modern times, before that it was religions praying on the weak, witch hunts, spanish inquisition, I can't wait until it happens here, oops think it already has lol


----------



## Mr J (28 November 2009)

Putty7, what you have described is one of the oldest tricks in the book for a politician to gain public support: find or create a common enemy. It's not hard to control a population through fear and an outlet for frustration. We're not becoming like America, we already were like that. The public as a whole (in most societies) does not have freedom of thought. Most lap up what they are fed.


----------



## Putty7 (28 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> Putty7, what you have described is one of the oldest tricks in the book for a politician to gain public support: find or create a common enemy. It's not hard to control a population through fear and an outlet for frustration. We're not becoming like America, we already were like that. The public as a whole (in most societies) does not have freedom of thought. Most lap up what they are fed.





True Mr J, it's just unfortunate that's all, sorry for stating the obvious lol, if a few more people actually woke up the world might be a better place to live.


----------



## Largesse (28 November 2009)

the vast majority aren't capable of unique and individual thought, so why expect it from them?


the world is a perfectly good place to live in as it is me thinks


----------



## CapnBirdseye (28 November 2009)

*Re: Building*

I am an engineer, and i can tell you that modern buidings should not suffer catastrophic collapse.  The Twin Towers are a different case.  There is a very reasonable explanation for their sudden collapse.

In simple terms modern buildings are designed to have a great deal of redundancy.  i.e you allow for columns or beams to be removed, and the building doesnt collapse, it just bends quite a bit.  Google 'progressive collapse' for details.  It's been a while since I have used it, but the UBC in the US would have a reqirement for this as a design feature.

The only problem with fire is that it does weaken steel a good bit.  Most buidings are designed to have about 2 hours fire resistance for floor elements.  This gives time for evacuation and fire supression.  Without water for firefighting the steel and connections will weaken rapidly.  

As per the twin towers, it is feasible that one floor collapsed on to another.  This should be ok, again we have some redundancy.  But if the steel connections in the double loaded floor get too hot, the steel becomes overstressed and the next floor is now carrying 3 floors.  Now we are in trouble.... most likely will fall to the ground.

Why would you clean it all up so quickly?  Good question.  I'm sure the insurers would want to know if the building construction or design was at fault, and want to get as much evidence as they could.  That is a wee bit fishy.



wayneL said:


> Noted:
> 
> But really creates more questions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stan 101 (28 November 2009)

*Re: Building*



CapnBirdseye said:


> As per the twin towers, it is feasible that one floor collapsed on to another.  This should be ok, again we have some redundancy.




There is a big difference between a live load and an impact from a floor above after failure. If building 7 was designed in a similar fashion to the twin towers they were a steel framed floor truss as opposed to post tensioned concrete or the like.

I did notice in all photos of the twin towers flooring system there were no lateral strongbacks running through the trusses.

The strong backs are generally installed purely for impact loads as the flooring on the top of the trusses often are not stiff enough to transfer the impact loads to adjacent floor trusses; likewise with the ceiling lining to the underside of the floor truss.

Does the code allow for impact load in high rise commercial buildings as opposed to straight live load of say 5kPa?

cheers,


----------



## CapnBirdseye (29 November 2009)

The floors would be designed for 5kPa in bending.  Then you design the floor in canenary to take the imposed load with a missing column.  This would give you additional robustness with the colmn in place.  Floors arent designed for any significant impact loads (other than the odd fat bloke).

The choice of floor system rarely effects the capcity of the floor beams.  For high-rise steel framed buildings its likely that a post tensioned floor would not be used.  Maybe a thin composite deck or precast.

The crux of the problem is that if a fire rages for a good while, then the steel gets very weak.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

Stan101, you sound like an engineer/architect like Cap'n Birdseye.

Do you or the good captain have a take on where the Thermite and Nano-Thermite fits in to the building collapses?

Also this has just come to my attention.....

The data from the black box from Flight 77, the plane that impacted the Pentagon, shows the cockpit cabin door was NEVER opened during the flight!!!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405&pid=10779358&st=0&#entry10779358


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

In an earlier post I mentioned $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon.

It turns out that was just from 1999.

A further $1 Trillion is also missing from 2000.

The offices in the Pentagon on 911 were the Defence budget analysts office.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 November 2009)

CapnBirdseye said:


> The crux of the problem is that if a fire rages for a good while, then the steel gets very weak.




No one can dispute that, but if the steel is weakened and collapses on say one side does that mean the building would fall down on itself perfectly or would it topple to the side a bit?


----------



## wayneL (29 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> No offence mate, but the physics of why that building dropped are sound.




Jonah Lomu could run 100m in 10.8 seconds. (9.26m/s)

Jonah Lomu could run through 50 of me and still score a try.

But Jonah Lomu could not run through 50 of me and still maintain 9.26m/s. 

Likewise, I have no problems with a building failing and falling down, but the way it happened. Many engineers and physicists apparently have the same problem. Others don't.


----------



## Stan 101 (29 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> Jonah Lomu could run 100m in 10.8 seconds. (9.26m/s)
> 
> Jonah Lomu could run through 50 of me and still score a try.
> 
> But Jonah Lomu could not run through 50 of me and still maintain 9.26m/s.




Wayne, that is a flawed analogy. In your scenario Jonah Lomu is running basically perpendicular to gravity. having to carry 50 of you whist running along the earth without the help of gravity of course will slow Jonah.

Now, take your analogy of Jonah and spin it -90 degrees so Jonah is falling. He hits the first of 50 Waynes breaking the (weakened) bindings that were holding Wayne 1 in place and placing Wayne 1 in motion.

We now have Wayne 1 and jonah barrelling down on Wayne 2. Poor Wayne 2 better brace for impact because we now have Jonah and Wayne 1. Now Wayne 1's restraints weren't enough withstand the force of Jonah so what chance does Wayne 2's restraints have? We then can only have sympathy for the other 48 Waynes.

Wayne, if you disagree with this I suggest you read up on Newtonian laws.


----------



## Stan 101 (29 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Stan101, you sound like an engineer/architect like Cap'n Birdseye.




I'm not an engineer. I just liked playing with Lego blocks as a child.



> Do you or the good captain have a take on where the Thermite and Nano-Thermite fits in to the building collapses?




No, I don't. I have not read about it and frankly I don't get excited over the conspiracy theory of why the buildings fell. BIG F***ING PLANES crashed into buildings. They burn. That fires spreads to adjoining buildings. Fire reduces structural integrity. Other building falls.

Why is that so hard to believe? Occam's razor at its best. Can you actually understand the ferocity of the force imparted on the building from a plane...yes.. a plane FFS hitting a building? Just stop for one minute and think of that.

Then just stop and think about all the flammable objects in the general office area. Near every bloody thing is covered in polypropylene or similar synthetic; chairs, carpet, window blinds, desk tops and on and on.




> The data from the black box from Flight 77, the plane that impacted the Pentagon, shows the cockpit cabin door was NEVER opened during the flight!!!




Again I'm not too excited about these conspiracies. The first thing a rational person would do is to verify the authenticity of such data. Have you done that? Until that is done, I wouldn't even contemplate looking at it.

And by authenticating I don't mean getting the okay from anonymous people on a conspiracy web site forum. 


I'm only posting in this thread simply from the point of view of sound principals or laws. I don't wish to entertain anything else.


Cheers,


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Wayne, that is a flawed analogy. In your scenario Jonah Lomu is running basically perpendicular to gravity. having to carry 50 of you whist running along the earth without the help of gravity of course will slow Jonah.
> 
> Now, take your analogy of Jonah and spin it -90 degrees so Jonah is falling. He hits the first of 50 Waynes breaking the (weakened) bindings that were holding Wayne 1 in place and placing Wayne 1 in motion.
> 
> ...




Stan, what you are saying is logical and makes perfect sense as I understand physics, it still does not address the Thermite issue however.

I am not an engineer or architect or explosives expert I am simply using information that is in the public domain.

From Wikipedia:

"Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite is not an explosive; instead *it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal* or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet."

"Thermite hand grenades and charges are *typically used by armed forces in both an anti-materiel role and in the partial destruction of equipment*, the latter being common when time is not available for safer or more thorough methods. Because standard iron-thermite is difficult to ignite, *burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action*."

"Thermite can permanently disable artillery pieces without the use of explosive charges and therefore *can be used when silence is necessary to an operation*."

I don't believe there were any explosions heard when building 7 came down.

The dust that blanketed New York after 911 contained Thermite and Nano-Thermite identified as manufactured by the US military.

Could these materials have come from any another source but the World Trade Centre buildings?

I believe you when you say buildings can come down the way you say and why, but your explanation does not address the evidence of all this thermite found in the debris.

Stan, I understand there are different types of thermite, is it used commonly in the engineering/construction/demolition industries, so could have come from somewhere else in New York?


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> No, I don't. I have not read about it and frankly I don't get excited over the conspiracy theory of why the buildings fell. BIG F***ING PLANES crashed into buildings. They burn. That fires spreads to adjoining buildings. Fire reduces structural integrity. Other building falls.
> 
> Why is that so hard to believe? Occam's razor at its best. Can you actually understand the ferocity of the force imparted on the building from a plane...yes.. a plane FFS hitting a building? Just stop for one minute and think of that.
> 
> Then just stop and think about all the flammable objects in the general office area. Near every bloody thing is covered in polypropylene or similar synthetic; chairs, carpet, window blinds, desk tops and on and on.




Yes, I'm a big believer in Occams Razor also.

The problem is that nothing in the building or the planes, including jet fuel, can burn at the temperature required to melt steel.



> Again I'm not too excited about these conspiracies. The first thing a rational person would do is to verify the authenticity of such data. Have you done that? Until that is done, I wouldn't even contemplate looking at it.
> 
> And by authenticating I don't mean getting the okay from anonymous people on a conspiracy web site forum.




This information comes from National Transportation Safety Board of America who possess the black boxes.



> I'm only posting in this thread simply from the point of view of sound principals or laws. I don't wish to entertain anything else.




So do I Stan, it just seems I have more data to work with than you. The key is, as you say, using only evidence and not junk from conspiracy theory websites.

Have a good weekend!


----------



## Stan 101 (29 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Stan, what you are saying is logical and makes perfect sense as I understand physics, it still does not address the Thermite issue however.




Okay, I'll bite only because it's sit here and type or start painting ceilings in a renovation. So it's a no brainer 


Okay, you'll need to enlighten me. First batch of questions.


How do we know there was thermite residue?

In what quantities are we talking? PPM (parts per million)?

What was the chemical compound of these thermite particles?

Okay just to speed things up, I'll assume there was thermite there. So now my next questions.

How was the thermite positioned at critical locations? My rudimentary understanding is that thermite is of powder consistency. 

What kept all the other thermite "piles" in critical position when the first thermite reactions took place?

How was the thermite detonated?

Who positioned the thermite and when was this done?

I'm unsure on the size of the steel members in building 7 but we will need to get an understanding so we can ascertain how much thermite would be needed to cut through a single member. We would then need to calculate approximately how many reactions would need to take place to have building 7 come down.

We could then get an idea of the time line required to plant the charges, how many people would be required to carry out the work and what size vehicle(s) would be needed to transport the thermite to site.

That's a good start Krusty. 


cheers,


----------



## Stan 101 (29 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> The problem is that nothing in the building or the planes, including jet fuel, can burn at the temperature required to melt steel.




Steel doesn't need to reach melting point before it begins to yield.



> This information comes from National Transportation Safety Board of America who possess the black boxes.




Who is the contact there to confirm this? The only thing I saw on the conspiracy web site is a bunch of data. How is it authenticated?

If you are reffering to the data on that site regarding the opening of the door, and if the data is true, my first thought (Occams Razor again) is the sensor for the cockpit door failed. Solid state sensors tend to fail more often than one would possibly believe. 

I do have data to back that up due to the replacement of the likes of sensors from manufacturers like Sick http://www.sick.com.au/au/en.html and Banner http://www.bannerengineering.com/en-US/ in all types of systems. Ask any service tech about a call out of false data / breakdown of the likes we are discussing and the first area to confirm is the sensors and electrical systems.

So we also need to acertain the door sensor system. When a sensor system fails does it offer a positive or negative signal. By this I mean when there is a failure in the loop, is the signal being sent say " The door is open" or "the door is closed?"
 We would only know this after examining the sensor model and how it was wired into the system. Was it wired into the system correctly?

Have any of the conspiracy lads on the site you referred to bothered to look at the wiring diagrams of the plane in question?






> it just seems I have more data to work with than you. The key is, as you say, using only evidence and not junk from conspiracy theory websites.




Krusty, in all fairness, the only data you have shown is from a conspiracy web site.


cheers,


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> [*]How do we know there was thermite residue?
> 
> [*]In what quantities are we talking? PPM (parts per million)?
> 
> ...




The info is in reports by the US Environmental Protection Agency who monitored the air quality in New York for potential health risks.



> Okay just to speed things up, I'll assume there was thermite there. So now my next questions.
> 
> How was the thermite positioned at critical locations? My rudimentary understanding is that thermite is of powder consistency.




It can in the form of shaped charges, it is used in grenades, it is used to destroy artillery and was even dropped in bombs in WWII, its also used alot on railways.




> [*]What kept all the other thermite "piles" in critical position when the first thermite reactions took place?




Good question. If it can be used for the above military applications, the methods of placing it could be endless.



> [*]How was the thermite detonated?




Even better question. Obviously remotely. 



> [*]Who positioned the thermite and when was this done?




LOL, the $64 million question!!!!!



> I'm unsure on the size of the steel members in building 7 but we will need to get an understanding so we can ascertain how much thermite would be needed to cut through a single member. We would then need to calculate approximately how many reactions would need to take place to have building 7 come down.
> 
> We could then get an idea of the time line required to plant the charges, how many people would be required to carry out the work and what size vehicle(s) would be needed to transport the thermite to site.
> 
> That's a good start Krusty.




LOL, now you're talking Stan!!! 

Thermite can also be used to weld metal so its quite possible that thermite could have been used in maintenance on the WTC.

The issue is that the thermite found is only manufactured and used by the military.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Steel doesn't need to reach melting point before it begins to yield.




Yes steel can bend and snap under enough pressure, the problem with the WTC is that there was molten steel found in the debris.

The official report on 911 by Uncle Sam also said that the jet fuel melted the steel supports.



> Who is the contact there to confirm this? The only thing I saw on the conspiracy web site is a bunch of data. How is it authenticated?
> 
> If you are reffering to the data on that site regarding the opening of the door, and if the data is true, my first thought (Occams Razor again) is the sensor for the cockpit door failed. Solid state sensors tend to fail more often than one would possibly believe.
> 
> ...




Yes, I must admit the more I look at that website the more doubt I am seeing also. I might have to go with you on this one Stan.

I came across this information on a legitimate US news site (which has since taken the story down), but only got the link for this "pilots for 911 truth" site yesterday.

It seems this website got the data itself from the Transportation Safety Board under FOI. It has since been independently verified by an "un-named" Australian.

You can download the data, but it might as well be in Ancient Greek, because I'm in no position to decipher it, and its not on an official document with letterhead or anything.

Its a futile debate anyway, since everyone knows it was a missile that hit the Pentagon!! LOL 

Flight 77 was not hijacked but redirected to another airport, so why would the flight deck door need to be opened mid flight. 

Well, there goes my Sunday, but it's too hot to do anything outside anyway!!!


----------



## bellenuit (29 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Thermite can also be used to weld metal so its quite possible that thermite could have been used in maintenance on the WTC.
> 
> The issue is that the thermite found is only manufactured and used by the military.




*9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do


----------



## wayneL (29 November 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Wayne, that is a flawed analogy. In your scenario Jonah Lomu is running basically perpendicular to gravity. having to carry 50 of you whist running along the earth without the help of gravity of course will slow Jonah.
> 
> Now, take your analogy of Jonah and spin it -90 degrees so Jonah is falling. He hits the first of 50 Waynes breaking the (weakened) bindings that were holding Wayne 1 in place and placing Wayne 1 in motion.
> 
> ...



Stan,

So if Jonah, in his decent hit a stationary me, his velocity won't be affected from the impact?

Can you explain to me which of Newton's laws covers this scenario please?

PS - I'm searching for answers here, some answers with slightly less pomposity would be appreciated.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> *9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do




Thanks Bellenuit, I haven't seen that before. Do you know who produced that vid, or who the guy talking was?

I noticed they were talking about thermate, as opposed to thermite, though they must be closely related. 

I haven't come across a Steven Jones or the USGS report, the stuff I saw was from the US EPA, I'll just have to keep looking I suppose.

Who do you believe out of all these so called "experts"?

There was another vid there about debunking the molten steel I'll check out too.

Cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 November 2009)

There is a conspiracy to disseminate conspiracy theories.


----------



## Stan 101 (29 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> PS - I'm searching for answers here, some answers with slightly less pomposity would be appreciated.




Never my intention, Wayne. So if you are reading that from my posts, please disregard it. Just typing as I think.




> So if Jonah, in his decent hit a stationary me, his velocity won't be affected from the impact?




Sure, Jonah hits Wayne 1 and some force is dissapated but Jonah still has gravity on his side and as the restraints holding Wayne one fails, we now have the mass of Jonah and Wayne 1 being affected by gravity and the distance between Wayne 1 and Wayne 2 for Jonah and Wayne one to accelerate. 
We also need to assume that the force exerted by Jonah was not absolutely equal to the force required to break Wayne 1's restraints.

Maybe think of a snooker ball and how a white ball hitting a coloured ball not in motiopn may stop and transfer load to the coloured ball. Now the coloured ball may cannon on to another coloured ball and set the second coloured ball in motion yet the first coloured ball may still continue on in its general direction.

The force applied to the second coloured ball to get it in motion (like breaking the restrainsts of Wayne 1 *" Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." - Newtons First Law *) by the first coloured ball was not the net total of the force of coloured ball 1.


Newton's second law is F (force) = m (mass) x a (acceleration). This is the key. The figuew of 9.7 will also come into play... Have a look for it on the net to get an idea.

The reason I say this is that I could post a huge post on it and still not be as precise as a scholar who has already made a web page that could convey the principal more precisely.


Cheers,


----------



## wayneL (29 November 2009)

Listen guys,

I brought this up because it was discussed on prime time TV here. A person qualified to comment (viz, an architect) expressed doubts about the manner in which it fell.

I was hoping for some intelligent conversation. For the most part, people have expressed their opinions with reason. Good stuff.

I just wonder why some people have to come along with silly comments about tin foil hats and similar nonsense (that has had to be deleted). We have no crazies in here with off the wall theories, just questions that people want answered.

It would be nice if people with unhelpful comments could keep them to themselves.

<add> *Thanks Sam*, digesting that and will probably have more questions.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 November 2009)

Here some analysis I found made by a physics teacher who analysed the US NIST report on building 7.

NIST is the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology, a part of the US department of Commerce. I don't know how they got dragged in to this investigation but they are.

They are HIS opinions on the data......interesting stuff, I'm not trained in the scientific method, but its curious they all seem to base everything on one video when they were many others available.





It seems the NIST professionals say that a freefall building collapse can't happen un-aided.

P.S. Yes, its still too hot to do anything else.


----------



## bellenuit (29 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> I noticed they were talking about thermate, as opposed to thermite, though they must be closely related.




_Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminium and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature[citation needed]. Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but to avoid confusion with thermate-TH3, one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort.

Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite[citation needed], it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers. As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater incendiary devices._

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



Krusty the Klown said:


> Thanks Bellenuit, I haven't seen that before. Do you know who produced that vid, or who the guy talking was?




I don't know who produced that particular video. But many of the videos that debunk the conspiracy theories of 9/11 were produced by Popular Mechanics, one of the most world renowned engineering magazines. They decided to put to the test most of the claims made by the conspiracy theorists and were able to debunk every one after just a superficial amount of research.

However, at the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe.

IMO the most blatantly obvious proof is that to do what the conspiracy theorists  say was done would have required a huge amount of people to be involved over an extended period. Even though they would each be experts in their own fields (demolition etc.), they all would have to have shared the same political conviction, which was to cause a catastrophe that would allow a new world order to take over the world. Thousands of people would have needed to be involved.

Even though there is hardly a political issue that doesn't leek like a sieve, to date not one person has come forward and claimed to be part of such a conspiracy. Do you think there was not one person that would have had a change of heart after they saw the result of this horrible deed and decide to confess? Yet not one has come forward.

There are several programs on Foxtel that relate to controlled demolition of big buildings. It can often take months of preparation to bring a building down in a controlled manner. Sometimes up to 5000 holes must be drilled into strategic weak spots in the building structure and explosives placed there that are linked by wire back to a central detonation point that not only starts the detonation, but controls by computer each individual detonation. This often requires up to 100km of cable. Yet this, what is suggested to be an absolute perfect demolition, was supposed to have been accomlished without anyone noticing what was going on?

We all saw the two planes crash in to the buildings. Why is the obvious answer the least acceptable to some people?


----------



## Macquack (29 November 2009)

And I thought those demolition guys were really clever utilising high tech simultaneous/sequencial detonated explosives. 

Turns out (according to NIST) all you need to do is have a 'out of control' bar-b-que and the building will neatly collapse on itself. Sounds like easy money and you get a free saugage sizzle.


----------



## bellenuit (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> they all would have to have shared the same political conviction, which was to cause a catastrophe that would allow a new world order to take over the world.




And another thing the conspiracy theorists conveniently forget is that we have had a change of administration since 9/11. What are they saying? That both sides of politics are in on this? If not, then how come after a year in power the Obama administration haven't found anything suspicious about what happened during that period?

The Republicans are using every dirty tactic under the sun to discredit Obama. Surely if the Obama administration had even the slightest evidence that the previous administration was somehow involved with 9/11, it would be using that evidence to defend itself. They could deal such a lethal blow to the Republicans that they couldn't recover for the rest of this century if they had any proof linking 9/11 to them.


----------



## wayneL (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> And another thing the conspiracy theorists conveniently forget is that we have had a change of administration since 9/11. What are they saying? That both sides of politics are in on this? If not, then how come after a year in power the Obama administration haven't found anything suspicious about what happened during that period?
> 
> The Republicans are using every dirty tactic under the sun to discredit Obama. Surely if the Obama administration had even the slightest evidence that the previous administration was somehow involved with 9/11, it would be using that evidence to defend itself. They could deal such a lethal blow to the Republicans that they couldn't recover for the rest of this century if they had any proof linking 9/11 to them.



At this stage, in this thread at least, I don't anyone is promoting any particular conspiracy theory, just trying to sort through what the architect said.

Regarding Popular Mechanics article. There are a number of sources that debunk the debunking. They have successfully debunked the crazier speculations, but core questions still remain unanswered.

This is like the climate change debate, folks believing essentially what they want to believe, on both sides.

It would be great to get past "the science is settled" bullsh!t and examine one thing at a time... rationally and with an open mind.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> And another thing the conspiracy theorists conveniently forget is......




The thing about 'conspiracy theories' is that there is a negative connotation associated with the term and because of this many good questions are brushed aside and dismissed. 

The thing is, conspiracies do actually happen. Who hasn't ever been involved in a conspiracy at work or in business for example? And who hasn't ever covered for a mate to their wife about where he was the night before? (no, no, no he was with me on the turps, really he was). Small scale example I know but you get the idea.

Where there are high stakes people lie and a conspiracy is just where two or more people have orchastrated their lying, it happens all the time, big and small. Only an idiot would think it doesn't.


----------



## prawn_86 (30 November 2009)

Macquack said:


> Turns out (according to NIST) all you need to do is have a 'out of control' bar-b-que and the building will neatly collapse on itself. Sounds like easy money and you get a free saugage sizzle.




This is an interesting point. Why not just light a huge fire on a floor near the top of a building whne you want to bring it down?

Surely the fuel would be cheaper than the 1000's of hrs of labour that goes into current demolition preperation...


----------



## sam76 (30 November 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> This is an interesting point. Why not just light a huge fire on a floor near the top of a building whne you want to bring it down?
> 
> Surely the fuel would be cheaper than the 1000's of hrs of labour that goes into current demolition preperation...




That is an interesting point as well.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I don't know who produced that particular video. But many of the videos that debunk the conspiracy theories of 9/11 were produced by Popular Mechanics, one of the most world renowned engineering magazines. They decided to put to the test most of the claims made by the conspiracy theorists and were able to debunk every one after just a superficial amount of research.




Yes, I've seen that program, it was 3 journalists who had a look at the claims made in the doco Loose Change. They came up with some alternative theories, with not a lot of evidence and like you said, not much research. There was no conclusive evidence presented that irrefutably disproved Loose Change's claims, just their opinions.

Loose Change was made by some 20 year olds with no technical experience. The Popular Mechanics program does not mention the evidence and testimonies from all the academics, scientists, engineers, architects and pilots who say the offical story is impossible. They are people who actually know what they are talking about. The problem with believing these experts is that there is so many of their colleagues and peers who disagree with them.

So who does the layman believe?



> However, at the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe.




And ignore the evidence that does not support their view.



> IMO the most blatantly obvious proof is that to do what the conspiracy theorists  say was done would have required a huge amount of people to be involved over an extended period. Even though they would each be experts in their own fields (demolition etc.), they all would have to have shared the same political conviction, which was to cause a catastrophe that would allow a new world order to take over the world. Thousands of people would have needed to be involved.




Your political conviction when you are in the military is irrelevant, you just follow orders. They have a huge amount of people and resources on hand. Just one possibility.

Thats the first time I've heard about a New World Order involved in all this, the theory I've come across was a "false flag" attack. An attack by your own forces on your own territory to justify going to war - like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Vietnam war.



> Even though there is hardly a political issue that doesn't leek like a sieve, to date not one person has come forward and claimed to be part of such a conspiracy. Do you think there was not one person that would have had a change of heart after they saw the result of this horrible deed and decide to confess? Yet not one has come forward.




What you are saying is not without precedent though.

The Manhattan Project (the development of the Atomic Bomb in WWII) was kept highly secret with no leaks. Most of the US military did not even know about it.

The plans for Operation Overlord, the landing of 1 million men and thousands of ships on Normandy in 1944, was kept secret from 100 million French and Germans in Europe who were taken by total surprise.

So it is possible.



> There are several programs on Foxtel that relate to controlled demolition of big buildings. It can often take months of preparation to bring a building down in a controlled manner. Sometimes up to 5000 holes must be drilled into strategic weak spots in the building structure and explosives placed there that are linked by wire back to a central detonation point that not only starts the detonation, but controls by computer each individual detonation. This often requires up to 100km of cable. Yet this, what is suggested to be an absolute perfect demolition, was supposed to have been accomlished without anyone noticing what was going on?




The WTC towers housed 80,000 workers, they would have had hundreds if not over a thousand maintenance personel, security, cleaners etc working at all hours of the day and night.

The IED's that kill soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are detonated remotely by mobile phone by impoverished amatuers, it's possible that any explosives in the WTC were detonated wirelessly too.

How's that for some "debunking"?

We could all go on forever with this.



> We all saw the two planes crash in to the buildings. Why is the obvious answer the least acceptable to some people?




Because there is so much physical, eyewitness and testimonial evidence that refutes the official story.


----------



## bellenuit (30 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> We could all go on forever with this.




I agree. And when each sides experts refute the other sides experts, then how are we, as laymen, to determine who is right. That is why my philosophy is to go for what is obvious. 

So on top of my list is that it would have required a huge amount of planning and resources to carry it out and they would have to have executed almost 100% flawlessly, as they appear to have done if you accept it as a conspiracy, to get away with it. This from the Bush administration that bungled almost everything they ever did. No way.

The plane that came down over Pennsylvania was destined to strike the White House. Bush may be an idiot, but I don't think the guy is so heartless that he would sacrifice White House staff who he would have undoubtedly established friendships with during his time as president.

Then there is the change of administration. The Obama administration hasn't given any indication that they think the whole (or even any part) of 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy. They have access to all the information, including secret information, and it would be in their interests to screw the republicans on this.

Then there is the motivation behind this. A false attack on your own country to justify going to war. An incident like the Tonkin in a far away country where there are no independent observers maybe, but something of this scale in your own back garden? I mean that is preposterous. It amounts to treason and everyone involved, at least at the top level, would possible receive death sentences for their involvement. Why would anyone takes such risks when the chances of failure are so high. In any case, the US have been terrific at manufacturing excuses to start wars. They would have gone into Iraq with or without 9/11.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 November 2009)

Beautifully typed pieces of sanity. You have the finesse our larrikins lack while the message remains the same.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 November 2009)

Just to pour some petrol on to the fire.....

_"Sarah, there’s a government inside the government, and I don’t control it." _Bill Clinton – as quoted by senior White House reporter Sarah McClendon.

I don't think anybody really seriously ever thought that Dubya was in charge, more like Dick Cheney. That's the scary thing about the VP in the US, the VP is appointed by the Party, not elected by the people.

Dubya was just the Lee Harvey Oswald of the Republican Party, who they knew he could take the fall for anything that went wrong, 9/11 aside, while the real powerbrokers and profiteers could get away scot free. Just look at the unwinding of the financial regulation that led up to the GFC, most of it took place in the 8 years of the Bush administration.

When Dubya says he didn't know anything about 9/11 before hand - I believe him. 

Take a look at this, watch the smirk and bear in mind the subject matter.



I guess I'll get a visit from some guys in dark suits, dark glasses and American accents in a few hours after posting this, so if you never hear from me again you'll know why.......


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> The plane that came down over Pennsylvania was destined to strike the White House. Bush may be an idiot, but I don't think the guy is so heartless that he would sacrifice White House staff who he would have undoubtedly established friendships with during his time as president.




I agree, I don't think Bush knew anything about it.



> Then there is the motivation behind this. A false attack on your own country to justify going to war. An incident like the Tonkin in a far away country where there are no independent observers maybe, but something of this scale in your own back garden? I mean that is preposterous. It amounts to treason and everyone involved, at least at the top level, would possible receive death sentences for their involvement.




Again, something like this is not without historical precedent.


Hitler killed millions of his own countrymen.

Stalin killed tens of millions of his own countrymen.

Pol Pot killed (insert figure in tens of thousands here) of his own countrymen.

Franco killed (insert figure in tens of thousands here) of his own countrymen.

 Idi Amin killed (insert figure in tens of thousands here) of his own countrymen.

Pinochet killed (insert figure in tens of thousands here) of his own countrymen.

And that's just in the last 100 years and off the top of my head.

To assume that it is *impossible* for white Anglo-Saxon males to possess this obviously common human behavioural potential is equally preposterous.


----------



## Mr J (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Then there is the change of administration. The Obama administration hasn't given any indication that they think the whole (or even any part) of 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy. They have access to all the information, including secret information, and it would be in their interests to screw the republicans on this.




Can you imagine the fallout if it came to light that the US Government was responsible? It would do significant damage to the currrent administration, all for a few political points against the opposing party? Wouldn't happen. Anyway, I would think if something like this were to happen, the government would not directly be involved anyway. Instead, a blind eye would be turned, and perhaps indirect support would be given to the attackers.



> Then there is the motivation behind this. A false attack on your own country to justify going to war. An incident like the Tonkin in a far away country where there are no independent observers maybe, but something of this scale in your own back garden? I mean that is preposterous. It amounts to treason and everyone involved, at least at the top level, would possible receive death sentences for their involvement.




Wars are becoming harder to justify. 9/11 was perfect, as not only was it a significant attack, it boiled the American blood.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> Can you imagine the fallout if it came to light that the US Government was responsible? It would do significant damage to the currrent administration, all for a few political points against the opposing party? Wouldn't happen. Anyway, I would think if something like this were to happen, the government would not directly be involved anyway. Instead, a blind eye would be turned, and perhaps indirect support would be given to the attackers.




The current administration would take some flak, but more so the citizens would lose faith in their current political system, which would destabilise and financially threaten all the politicians and the 100,000's of hangers on.

I saw a recent doco on the GFC on the ABC, it showed the district in Washington DC which housed all the *40,000* professional political lobbyists. Amazing!!



> Wars are becoming harder to justify. 9/11 was perfect, as not only was it a significant attack, it boiled the American blood.




And it is a war with an unseen enemy, so the fight can be mobile, wherever the US wants to pick a fight they can say there are terrorists there.

It would be hard to pin something like this on one administration in particular however. Who actually gains out of all this if it is an inside job? Not the US government - they are spending $1 billion per day funding their war and they are going further in to debt. 

So who would profit? The suppliers to the Defence Department and oil companies presumably.

The Oliver Stone movie "W" told that the war was to secure the oil that underpins the US economy. Without the oil the US economy would falter and they would lose their sole superpower status and political clout overseas - the chief architect of this in the movie was Dick Cheney. Could this be the reason? 

The protection of the country, its people and its interests (ie economy) is the mandate of all "democratically" elected governments.

But this is stuff we've all heard before....


----------



## Mr J (30 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> The current administration would take some flak, but more so the citizens would lose faith in their current political system




That's my point - it would harm faith in the system, and therefore do a huge amount of damage to the current government. It would be a case of protecting the previous administration to maintain the credibility of your own.



> Who actually gains out of all this if it is an inside job? Not the US government - they are spending $1 billion per day funding their war and they are going further in to debt.




A cynic would say that government only exists to line the pockets of the wealthy. Who benefits? The military industrial complex, for starters. I'm not suggesting it was an inside job though.


----------



## bellenuit (30 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Again, something like this is not without historical precedent.
> 
> 
> Hitler killed millions of his own countrymen.
> ...




They were all dictators who knew they would not have to face their own judicial system because they owned that judicial system. Anyone involved with 9/11 had little control over the judicial system under the then Bush Administration, never mind that under an administration that might be controlled by your political rivals.

If there is a conspiracy, it is more likely by those who are making a fortune riding the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon. They know that no matter how irrational the claims made, there will still be those who will believe those claims and reject the obvious answers.

4 planes were hijacked. Two flew into the WT buildings, one into the Pentagon and the other brought down by passengers who had been alerted to what had happened. They know who did it. They have traced their movements through Europe etc prior to the hijackings. They know Osama and his cohorts were behind it. Osama has admitted it and is proud of the deed. The US screwed up by ignoring the intelligence that such an event was planned. But that intelligence is documented. 

But instead of accepting the bleeding obvious, we are to accept that the hijackers were only a side show. That it was all planned by a secret group within the US government. They would have required 1000s of people to be involved to pull it off. It all worked flawlessly. Everyone involved has maintained strict secrecy ever since. 

The planned detonation of Building 7 was to hide secret documents and missing funds. They knew exactly that the WT 1 and 2 would be hit and that the fall of those buildings would start a fire in Building 7 that would not be able to be extinguished for many hours so that they could then blow the building up and pretend that it was the series of other events that caused it.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> If there is a conspiracy, it is more likely by those who are making a fortune riding the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon. They know that no matter how irrational the claims made, there will still be those who will believe those claims and reject the obvious answers.




You might be right, I'd love to see the evidence of profits from all the scientists, pilots, architects, engineers, academics who are making this fortune. Not the Loose Change producers, who put out their documentary out for free on the internet.



> 4 planes were hijacked. Two flew into the WT buildings, one into the Pentagon and the other brought down by passengers who had been alerted to what had happened. They know who did it. They have traced their movements through Europe etc prior to the hijackings.




Indeed, 9 of the hijackers were traced to the Middle East and interviewed by the free press 2 weeks after 9/11. To my knowledge they are still alive and well.



> They would have required 1000s of people to be involved to pull it off. It all worked flawlessly. Everyone involved has maintained strict secrecy ever since.




Its still not impossible, no matter how improbable.

It didn't work flawlessly, hence all the evidence in the public domain.

Just because you find something improbable and hard to believe does not make it impossible.



> The planned detonation of Building 7 was to hide secret documents and missing funds. They knew exactly that the WT 1 and 2 would be hit and that the fall of those buildings would start a fire in Building 7 that would not be able to be extinguished for many hours so that they could then blow the building up and pretend that it was the series of other events that caused it.




So you don't find it to be an amazing coincidence that on 10/09/01 Donald Rumsfeld announced $3.3 billion un-accounted for in the Pentagon defence spending in 1999-2000 and the very offices of the Defence budget analysis team, all the staff investigating these missing funds and all their records, were suddenly destroyed by Middle Eastern terrorist plane hijackers the very next day?

Astronomical co-incidence don't you think 

Bellenuit, you are the one talking about the most obvious answer being the right one, you must admit this is an extraordinary coincidence? Particularly considering that it has never been investigated since then.

A coincidence is not impossible by any means, but a guilty party destroying evidence?

That's much more probable.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Indeed, 9 of the hijackers were traced to the Middle East and interviewed by the free press 2 weeks after 9/11. *To my knowledge* they are still alive and well.



You're a funny guy.   One would have to be stubborn to debate on what is real and what is illusory.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> You're a funny guy.   One would have to be stubborn to debate on what is real and what is illusory.




You know you're right, I think I really should double check that before posting it, it was about 5 years ago I saw that in a doco. 

Might be worth checking to see if this evidence didn't turn out to be spurious!!


----------



## bellenuit (30 November 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> So you don't find it to be an amazing coincidence that on 10/09/01 Donald Rumsfeld announced $3.3 billion un-accounted for in the Pentagon defence spending in 1999-2000 ......




According to Wolfram Alpha, US Military Spending was $500 billion (2005 estimate). $3.3 billion is less than 1% of that. 



Krusty the Klown said:


> ...... and the very offices of the Defence budget analysis team, all the staff investigating these missing funds and all their records, were suddenly destroyed by Middle Eastern terrorist plane hijackers the very next day?




So didn't the family and spouses of this team that were all destroyed not put two and two together?  Not a whimper from them. 

And of course none of this data was backed up. A government department with a budget of half a trillion doesn't back up their data off-site. It never occurred to anyone that there might be a fire in the building one day and their data could all be lost, so shouldn't they take one of the most rudimentary data security precautions and keep copies of all data in a different location. I run a very small business and I even take that precaution. Have you ever heard of Disaster Recovery Centres. You can bet your bottom dollar that the US military and defence department have multiple levels of redundancy in their stored data.

And if Rumsfeld was planning the destruction of the data, why announce the shortfall to begin with. Simply let the data be destroyed and then no one would be the wiser of any such shortfall.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> According to Wolfram Alpha, US Military Spending was $500 billion (2005 estimate). $3.3 billion is less than 1% of that.




Sorry, that was my typo, the figure is $3.3 trillion not billion




> So didn't the family and spouses of this team that were all destroyed not put two and two together?  Not a whimper from them.




There was quite a bit of enquiry by families, demanding an investigation, then demanding another one after the 9/11 commission handed down its report.

Check out this vid from Youtube, it has quite a few media articles in it - the one I liked the best is the headline "Bush wants to appoint himself chairman of the 9/11 commission".



And another.





> And of course none of this data was backed up. A government department with a budget of half a trillion doesn't back up their data off-site. It never occurred to anyone that there might be a fire in the building one day and their data could all be lost, so shouldn't they take one of the most rudimentary data security precautions and keep copies of all data in a different location. I run a very small business and I even take that precaution. Have you ever heard of Disaster Recovery Centres. You can bet your bottom dollar that the US military and defence department have multiple levels of redundancy in their stored data.




You'd think so wouldn't you?

US governments have a long history of not keeping copies and losing originals think JFK and RFK assassinations, Watergate, Roswell, Iran Contra etc.



> And if Rumsfeld was planning the destruction of the data, why announce the shortfall to begin with. Simply let the data be destroyed and then no one would be the wiser of any such shortfall.




Didn't Rumsfeld come in with the Bush administration when they were elected in November 2000? The administration was not sworn in until January 2001 following the November election. They always have it at the same time of year due to tradition.

The funds were supposedly long gone by then, maybe it was all news to him and he was not party to it all.

You know that comment about some of the hijackers still being alive after the attacks has piqued my interest. I'd forgotten all about it. There was a doco on SBS about 5 years ago that investigated the hijackers and ignored all the other 9/11 noise.

The story was, that all 16 hijackers were identified by authorities within 24 hours of the attacks, because their passports were found at the crash sites, even though the rest of the planes vapourised. When the media got this info, the first thing they did was try and contact the families for interviews and 9 of these guys were still alive, living in the middle east.

I even remember back to Sep 11/12 2001 that these hijackers names and photos were all over the TV screens and newspapers.

I can't say I've seen anything else about these claims since then, considering it would be quite an earth shattering find. It must have been debunked a while ago, I'll see what I can find.


----------



## bellenuit (1 December 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> There was quite a bit of enquiry by families, demanding an investigation, then demanding another one after the 9/11 commission handed down its report.




I don't know why there would be enquiries from families and demands for an investigation. There was no one killed in Building 7. So whatever happened to this mysterious team checking on the missing trillions that were all apparently wiped out according to you?

http://non-conspiracist9-11.blogspot.com/

In any case, this has been hacked to death by others so I will leave you to it. Both sets of arguments are there for everyone to read and see. I have yet to read or hear anything from the conspiracy theorists that there isn't a couple of far more plausible explanations for than what they are suggesting. 

One thing though that you should check out. You say $3.3 trillion has gone missing from, what was it, 2000/2001 defence budget. The 2010 Defence Budget comes only to about $650 billion even after adding in contingencies. Back around 2000 it would have been around $450 billion. So, you are effectively saying that not just a part of the 2000/2001 defence budget has gone unaccounted for, but the equivalent of the total defence budget for nearly a decade. 

Here is the 2010 budget for the Dept of Defence.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 December 2009)

As an ASF member I don't really know much about the structural strength of reinforced concrete or stress-physics. So I'll just sit back and laugh and contribute a youtube snippet.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> As an ASF member



I don't recall giving you permission to use my portrait as an avatar.


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> I don't recall giving you permission to use my portrait as an avatar.




ROFTLMAO. No worries wysi. These guys had you and me in their sights the whole time. Luckily both of us were saved. Because we are either flukes of nature or zionists intent on proliferating lies. 

Here -> Jerks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I don't know why there would be enquiries from families and demands for an investigation. There was no one killed in Building 7. So whatever happened to this mysterious team checking on the missing trillions that were all apparently wiped out according to you?




The budget analysis team were in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed, not building 7. Their bodies were identified by US forensic teams.

It's not according to me, its according to Donald Rumsfeld as shown in a video in an earlier post.

Maybe building 7 housed all the copies and backup data you mentioned earlier. :




> In any case, this has been hacked to death by others so I will leave you to it. Both sets of arguments are there for everyone to read and see. I have yet to read or hear anything from the conspiracy theorists that there isn't a couple of far more plausible explanations for than what they are suggesting.




I haven't drawn a conclusion from all this, despite to say that most of the debunking arguments and alternative explanations are just as dubious, flawed and laughable as many of the conspiracy theories, leaving much evidence and many questions still unanswered and unexplained.



> One thing though that you should check out. You say $3.3 trillion has gone missing from, what was it, 2000/2001 defence budget. The 2010 Defence Budget comes only to about $650 billion even after adding in contingencies. Back around 2000 it would have been around $450 billion. So, you are effectively saying that not just a part of the 2000/2001 defence budget has gone unaccounted for, but the equivalent of the total defence budget for nearly a decade.




No, it was not the 2000/2001 defence budgets, it was *actual cash spent* by the DoD and unaccounted for during 1999 and 2000, not *spending budgeted for.*

As an accountant you know the difference between budgeted and actual expense.

Budgets do rise and fall over time, they don't stay static with an incremental increase. Just because an organisation is allocated a certain amount of funding they often go in to deficit and surplus. 

Surpluses are often retained in reserve for future use, no-one ever says "we don't need all that money, just give less next time" 

And again its not me saying this - it was *Donald Rumsfeld*. :


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> As an ASF member I don't really know much about the structural strength of reinforced concrete or stress-physics. So I'll just sit back and laugh and contribute a youtube snippet.





LOL


----------



## Timmy (1 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> As an ASF member I don't really know much about the structural strength of reinforced concrete or stress-physics. So I'll just sit back and laugh and contribute a youtube snippet.





Oh Gumby, this is hilarious! (And a bit wrong )


----------



## DJZ (1 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> As an ASF member I don't really know much about the structural strength of reinforced concrete or stress-physics. So I'll just sit back and laugh and contribute a youtube snippet.





LOL . . Ah thats good Satire! Golden!


----------



## bellenuit (1 December 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> No, it was not the 2000/2001 defence budgets, it was *actual cash spent* by the DoD and unaccounted for during 1999 and 2000, not *spending budgeted for.*




These are the White House figures on *actual* Government Spending in *all* areas:

1999: $1.70 Trillion
2000: $1.78 Trillion

This is the total *actual* defence spending for those 2 years:

1999: $274 Billion
2000: $294 Billion

In fact the total defence spending for the 12 years up to and including 2000 only comes to about $3.3 trillion.

This information is all available from this White House document:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf

The 1999 and 2000 figures are on page 53 of the document (or 57 under Adobe).

Yet you say that there is a black hole of $3.3 trillion in the defence spending  for 1999 and 2000 alone. 



Krusty the Klown said:


> And again its not me saying this - it was *Donald Rumsfeld*. :




I have gone back through your links and can't see where he says that. Would you mind reposting it as I'd like to hear what he actually said.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> These are the White House figures on *actual* Government Spending in *all* areas:
> 
> 1999: $1.70 Trillion
> 2000: $1.78 Trillion
> ...




It was in this video news report between 3:00 and 5:00 minutes.



Here is the full CBS News TV story.



and the CBS transcript: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml 

This is also amusing from 2007:



That was 2007, I don't know where this issue is at now, it was quite a big story in 2002.

I don't know why Rumsfeld should be held accountable when he was not Secretary of Defence at the time of all the shenanigans.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

I mentioned in an earlier post about a report some of the 9/11 hi-jackers being alive after the attacks.

Here is a BBC report of this dated 23/09/01.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm 

The suspected hi-jackers as advised by the FBI 28/09/01.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1567815.stm

In 2006, the BBC reviewed the matter the FBI said this:

_"We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."_

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

The same 16 names and identities were used and named in the official governemt 9/11 report.

First thoughts would be identity theft, but there are photos before and after the attacks.

These links show pre and post 9/11 photos and videos. I can't verify the trustworthyness of this site but you can follow the links inside these pages to the actual legitimate News sites where the videos and the reports are.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_11.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_175.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_77.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_93.html

Intriguing stuff.

So let's assume the hi-jackers used stolen identities - why? 

Don't terrorists always want everyone to know who did the deed so we know who to be terrified of?


----------



## bellenuit (1 December 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> I don't know why Rumsfeld should be held accountable when he was not Secretary of Defence at the time of all the shenanigans.




Well the reason for that appears to be that Rumsfeld was taken completely out of context by that remark. There was no crime or cover-up whatsoever so neither he nor who ever was Secretary of Defence at the time needed to be held accountable for the so called missing $2.3 trillion. He was not saying that $2.3 trillion had gone missing from the 1999 & 2000 defence spending. It was in fact a speech to a group of logisticians, regarding the fact that there were decades of data on their computer systems, which they were unable to efficiently access because the systems were antiquated.

This is very very different to the spin put on it by the CTs.

This is the full context of that particular part of his speech.

_The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. *According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.* We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible._

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/11/missing-trillions.html

One might wonder why the extracts appearing on the sites you mentioned only seem to show Rumsfeld saying that one line that I have highlighted.


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> Well the reason for that appears to be that Rumsfeld was taken completely out of context by that remark. There was no crime or cover-up whatsoever so neither he nor who ever was Secretary of Defence at the time needed to be held accountable for the so called missing $2.3 trillion. He was not saying that $2.3 trillion had gone missing from the 1999 & 2000 defence spending. It was in fact a speech to a group of logisticians, regarding the fact that there were decades of data on their computer systems, which they were unable to efficiently access because the systems were antiquated.




I just read the whole Rumsfeld speech.

That makes much more sense, doesn't it? It was nothing sinister, Rumsfeld is just saying the Pentagon has the worlds worst accounting system! LOL 

Bellenuit, you and I seriously have to go and get a job in the Pentagon Accounting Office. 

If they can't track *$2.3 trillion* in transactions, I reckon I could retire on my own island after about 2 weeks. LOL.

It might not be sinister or involved in 9/11 but its still just as staggering from an accounting point of view, it leaves the door open for fraud and misappropriation of funds on a massive scale. 

Particularly alarming if you are a US taxpayer. What would we say here in Oz if our government said we can't account for $1 billion. It would be a huge scandal, let alone over $3 trillion.

Its tantamount to no accounting system at all, considering the annual budget figures you put forward. Where did it all go if it wasn't stolen? If it can't be tracked, then it can't be proven that some of it wasn't stolen.

So its more likely that the transactions happened over a longer period than 2 years. As at 2006 those funds were still not accounted for, the majority may have all been spent legitimately, but who knows how much slipped through the cracks.

They don't need to modernise their accounting system, they need to abandon it completely and just start a new one.



> One might wonder why the extracts appearing on the sites you mentioned only seem to show Rumsfeld saying that one line that I have highlighted.




Like the CBS nightly TV news!!!! Journalists taking a quote out of context, gee that's never happened before has it?

And people wonder why I don't watch TV news. LOL 

I had to laugh out loud when I read this line of the speech though - the day before 9/11:

_"Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people?"_

I'm surprised conspiracy theorists haven't picked up on it.


----------



## bellenuit (1 December 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> So its more likely that the transactions happened over a longer period than 2 years. As at 2006 those funds were still not accounted for, the majority may have all been spent legitimately, but who knows how much slipped through the cracks.




I don't know, without doing more research, that it is fair to say that there is $2.6 trillion still unaccounted for. Not being able to track it isn't the same as saying that the information isn't there. 

By tracking it, he could be referring to not being able to track it by department or by service or by multiple other methods that modern computer systems allow information to be analysed by. There may be hundreds of incompatible computer systems across the 3 services that all store information pertaining to different departments within those services. But when somebody in the Pentagon needs to track information that requires data aggregation across those systems, they may not be able to do it. For example, a request from congress to find total fuel expenses used by medical vehicles may be something that they cannot track. The information could be there, but spread across all those incompatible systems


----------



## Krusty the Klown (1 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> I don't know, without doing more research, that it is fair to say that there is $2.6 trillion still unaccounted for. Not being able to track it isn't the same as saying that the information isn't there.




If there is data there and the decision maker can't track it or find it, then it is unaccounted for.



> By tracking it, he could be referring to not being able to track it by department or by service or by multiple other methods that modern computer systems allow information to be analysed by. There may be hundreds of incompatible computer systems across the 3 services that all store information pertaining to different departments within those services. But when somebody in the Pentagon needs to track information that requires data aggregation across those systems, they may not be able to do it. For example, a request from congress to find total fuel expenses used by medical vehicles may be something that they cannot track. The information could be there, but spread across all those incompatible systems




Thats what I took from Rumsfelds speech too, the mass waste of tripling up the same systems, the lack of cost savings from integration of information and supply, the duplication of identical practices over the individual services. There is no way any corporation would be run that way.

It sounds like the old manual accounting systems for each individual service from 100 years ago were computerised individually, but not integrated or co-ordinated using the same systems. Bad systems planning. I remember reading about the jealousy and rivalry between each of the services for funding, so keeping their finances to themselves would be par for the course. 

It's like that Admiral said in one of those vids, he could find the extra $50 billion easily, just by eliminating ineffiencies - but no one cared. Now they are paying the price.

It still sounds like the best opportunity for _*creative accounting/retirement planning*_ I've come across!!!!


----------

