or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bin Laden - Page 20

post #381 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post




So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or cover up....it's just truly....why on earth would we not look at this highly unique situation and try to get a better understanding of every single thing we possibly could? It is so crazy to me. This was HUGE for our country. HUGE. How could it be that our response is, "Wow. That was weird. Huh. Welp, let's just get this cleaned up and move on." Who DOES that?
 

 



Well, except it wasn't as if all of the evidence was up and destroyed immediately.  It WAS investigated, just not, apparently, to your liking.  Was all investigated as throughly and extensively as it could have been, possibly not.  Were there mistakes made in the investigation, totally possible.  Does it make sense to do a total re-check of the work, absolutely.  But, there are plenty of parts of the building that do still exist and evidenced by the fact that beams from Ground Zero just made a tour of my state (and no I can't provide the details of which building they were from or what parts of the buildings or any of that, I just saw a couple of blurbs on the news, I didn't drive out to see them.) So, no, it's not as if they said "that was weird, huh, well, lets just get this cleaned up and move on."  It's not like the report they did was just some novel or something they totally made up.  They DID do investigations, they DID look into how it happend, they DID test things and check things and calculate things etc etc.  Just because some conspiracy theorists, experts or not, don't like HOW they did it or don't believe it was done properly doesn't mean it wasn't done at all.  They didn't just rush in on 9/12 and scoop it all up into black bags and melt it all down. 

 

 

Yay, edit working again!

 

To take it a step further--

 

Why wouldn't look for explosives....um, because two large commercial jets were intentionally flown into two 100+ story buildings.  Why would anyone think, in the shock and confusion of those days and weeks, between trying to find people and trying to figure out who did it and would it happen again and so on, to look signs of an intentional demolition?

 

Why would building 7 get so much less attention?  No one died, no one got hurt and the loss was SO small compared to the rest of the tragedies of the day.  In terms of empty building collapses vs 2 100+ story buildings have airliners intentionally flown into them, causing collapse and the deaths of thousands of people...the 100+ story buildings are the bigger deal.


Edited by happysmileylady - 5/12/11 at 9:47am
post #382 of 412

Hey, I'm not sure if I'm reading your posts wrong or if my questioning this is upseting you, but I really am just wondering about all this.

 

It "wasn't to my liking?" Black bags? Really? I mean, c'mon....

 

There are many other wild eyed conspiracy freaks (which I guess I'm now one of for asking some of these questions?) like the editor of Firefighter magazine who felt that shipping the steel off was highly unusual and a missed opportunity to gather information about why these buildings reacted so unusually. Asking for more information or pointing out massive missed opportunities is not the same as wearing a tin foil hat or whatever it is you seem to think I believe about that day or our government or what-have-you.

post #383 of 412



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by happysmileylady View Post

 

 

Yay, edit working again!

 

To take it a step further--

 

Why wouldn't look for explosives....um, because two large commercial jets were intentionally flown into two 100+ story buildings.  Why would anyone think, in the shock and confusion of those days and weeks, between trying to find people and trying to figure out who did it and would it happen again and so on, to look signs of an intentional demolition?

 

Why would building 7 get so much less attention?  No one died, no one got hurt and the loss was SO small compared to the rest of the tragedies of the day.  In terms of empty building collapses vs 2 100+ story buildings have airliners intentionally flown into them, causing collapse and the deaths of thousands of people...the 100+ story buildings are the bigger deal.


Ugh...nothing's working right for me. LOL. Post lost....trying again...

 

I would think looking for explosives would have been a natural result of so many eye-witnesses (including first responders) who said they felt/saw/heard explosions. Surely they thought those explosions were the result of more attacks and that seems very likely. Did the ATF get involved? I don't think they did. Not to mention the striking similarity that all three buildings exhibited to controlled demolition. I dunno...to me you turn that stone. Shouldn't this have been the ultimate "all hands on deck...what the hell happened here?"

 

Re. building 7, it's not even that it got so much less attention, it's that in the official inquiry that NIST did over years....it got NO attention. The FEMA report even said it was unusual and the hypotheses about fuel and structural damage had low probability of happening and that it should be examined. These are the kinds of buildings we still use and build and go into and yet......they might be this prone to catastrophic failure from fire and maybe generators? That's chilling. How do we not examine that? 


 

 


Edited by monkey's mom - 5/12/11 at 10:13am
post #384 of 412

This is what bothers me. Yes, planes hit the towers. Yes, there were fires. But, nobody wants to investigate the possibility of some type of explosives that might have brought down the buildings. Why not? What is the reason to ignore the possibility of controlled demolition?  It looks like a demo, it sounded like a demo, but no, we can't even explore the possibility of a demo, because it makes people feel uncomfortable.  Can't even explore the possibility. Why not explore it, to try and disprove it?

When did scientists limit themselves?

 

If somebody wrecks the car and dies, don't we examine the person for drugs/alcohol? We don't automatically say, "the wreck killed him." We want to know what may have caused him to wreck. Well, for 9/11, the planes hit the towers, but some of us don't believe they fell for that reason. We want to look deeper.

There are 2(+)  schools of thought into the mystery. Some believe the scientists & engineers who support the official 9/11 story, and some of us believe the scientists & engineers who call for a new investigation. Both sides have experts, so it is a personal choice which side you believe. Very much like medicine, but that's another debate!

 

Is it impossible for an insect to speak in Latin? Yes.

Is it impossible for a fish to tie his shoes? Yes.

Is it impossible to blow up 3 buildings and blame it on terrorists? No.

 

Now, why are they not looking at explosives as one of the several possibilities? If somebody you loved died that day, wouldn't you want to investigate every single possibility? Even those that make you feel uncomfortable?  Would you ignore the possibility of any government involvement?  I don't put it past any (bad) person, if they happen to hold a gov't title or not. If a parent can commit crimes against his/her own child, then why can't bad people commit crimes against their own country?

 

I guess I want to get this point across-- 9/11 may NOT have been an inside job, but there is always the possibility that it was.

And I apologize, for I said I would use facts in this discussion. All I've done lately is express my opinions. I'll find some good facts, and post them later today.

post #385 of 412

That's the thing...the presence of explosives does not = all fingers point to our gov't.

 

Did terrorists penetrate the building during that shut down and plant explosives? Were they able to use technology we weren't aware of to detonate the building? Did they employ the use of window washers to afix explosives to the outside of the building? I mean.....who knows. There are a million different possibilities, none of which directly mean that this was some evil plan hatched by our own governement.

post #386 of 412

Ha, good point! Why can't we investigate the possibility that the terrorists planted explosives?

post #387 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post




So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or cover up....it's just truly....why on earth would we not look at this highly unique situation and try to get a better understanding of every single thing we possibly could? It is so crazy to me. This was HUGE for our country. HUGE. How could it be that our response is, "Wow. That was weird. Huh. Welp, let's just get this cleaned up and move on." Who DOES that?
 

 



Someone who doesn't care.  No matter who created the castastrophe that was 9/11 the media, the World bank, the National Treasury and the members of the US government saw a fabulous opportunity (maybe they created it, maybe they encouraged it, maybe they laid the groundwork for it to happen and just stood back and watched or maybe being professional opportunists they merely took advantage of a tragic situation turning those proverbial lemons into lemonade...who can say?) to incite the people against a long time enemy and begin an incredibly debilitating and financially (for them not the US people) beneficial war. 

 

If we had investigated further they would have had to abandon the whole Taliban-Al-Qaeda-WMD-Sadam-Iraq call to arms and actually start talking evidence and responsibility.

 

That doesn't keep people glued to the TV as well as incitations of hatred and revenge.  I mean who wants to watch a bunch of scientists examine building structures and talk about physics and engineering and all that junk?  It's so much easier to get people to care about such clever things as an "axis of evil" than it is to get them to care about the melting point of metals.  

 

I personally think the media can get people interested in ANYTHING (Olliver North trials were a big hit...I mean hello snooze fest!) so the question I ask myself is why wouldn't they want us to be interested in that?  What benefit do they gain from not investigating it?  Because that is the other possible answer.  Someone who doesn't want to know and/or doesn't want you to know.  I know when I royally screw things up, I do my level best to glaze over it, blame outside circumstances or deflect, deflect, deflect.  Change the subject ASAP. I can't imagine those with the majority share of power and control over public opinion are any different.

 

The TV stations, particularly the News Stations were a Gladiator stadium come to life.  We will seek revenge and we will get justice!!!!  It was like a page out of some great battle film. 

 

I have a hard time believing there wasn't a particular and self-serving reason as to why the news stations were all tuned into images of BinLaden and the towers, the towers and BinLaden.  Tiny children crying out for mommy and daddy and the towers and BinLaden.  Women and children being carried out on gurneys and the towers and BinLaden.  Brave Firefighters and EMS workers, and the towers and BinLaden. Every channel, every moment of every day for months and months. It looked very much like every war time propaganda campaign I have ever seen from Nazi Germany to Maoist China to the reducation campaigns of Vietnam.  It was frightening and served one clear purpose.  Not to seek justice, truth or clarity as we expect of the news, but to cloud judgement and move the masses toward supporting action against any enemy the State chose whatsoever.

 

Why bother having an investigation when the press have made the case so convincingly?

post #388 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

No, it's really not that. And I'm not trying to be combative. greensad.gif

 

I'm just really confused by the suggestion that a candle, given the right conditions, could behave like a blow torch. And acting like that is a given.

 

Steel melts at a certain temerature. 1800 degrees, if I recall correctly. The average fire is going to maintain somewhere in the low to mid hundreds of degrees. Of course there can be flashes or hot spots that could reach into the low thousands.

 

It is not MY opinion that steel needs a certain temperature for prolonged periods to weaken or melt. It's just not. And according to the official reports the steel samples showed that the steel was about 500 degrees (in Towers 1 and/or 2, Tower 7 was not included). You can watch videos of the building and see there are no flames. You can also watch news casts of workers discussing the molten pit. ::shrug::

 

I just don't understand how a scientific anomoly--something that has never happened before or since--which leaves me (and many other engineers, firefighters, and professionals) wondering, "What the hell happened here??" means I somehow just hate the government and have latched onto some nonsense to justify that. It's pretty insulting, I gotta tell you.

 

 


Ok, first... A candle can be turned into a blowtorch (of sorts) if the right thing is added, namely a highly flammable spray of some kind.

 

Second, steel is made of iron and carbon. Iron oxidizes, when iron oxidizes it produces heat. That is how things like some hand warmers, or flammeless radiation heaters used in MRE's work.

 

You can watch videos of the building and see there are fires, it all depends on where the video was taken. The fires weren't visible from all sides of the building.

 

As for the last part, there are plenty of people out there who have reported on this beyond FEMA (including NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) who have given far more evidence than "well I didn't see any of this, or that person claims they saw that" to show that, while unique in and of itself, the collapse is not much of an anomaly. It followed the laws of physics and chemistry to fall without any sort of government involvement.

 

 

 

post #389 of 412


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post


Ok, first... A candle can be turned into a blowtorch (of sorts) if the right thing is added, namely a highly flammable spray of some kind.

 

Second, steel is made of iron and carbon. Iron oxidizes, when iron oxidizes it produces heat. That is how things like some hand warmers, or flammeless radiation heaters used in MRE's work.

 

You can watch videos of the building and see there are fires, it all depends on where the video was taken. The fires weren't visible from all sides of the building.

 

As for the last part, there are plenty of people out there who have reported on this beyond FEMA (including NIST http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) who have given far more evidence than "well I didn't see any of this, or that person claims they saw that" to show that, while unique in and of itself, the collapse is not much of an anomaly. It followed the laws of physics and chemistry to fall without any sort of government involvement.

 

 

 


Excellent, it was my understanding that NIST did not undertake a report (initially, I guess), so I'm interested to look at that. Thank you!

 

Yes, a candle can become a torch but it needs more than variables like air. Which is my point about the buildings.

 

Oxidation produces heat that is neglible. Even in the cases of handwarmers and such a chemical reaction must take place. The metal doesn't just get exposed to air and start to super combust. Why would we build buildings out of that? Other chemicals (not normally present in these situations) could certainly be introduced to generate enough heat to compromise metal or even melt it. But metal itself reacting to a typical fire? Not as far as I know.

 

Anyway....off to read the report. Thanks again!

 

post #390 of 412

Oh. Well, it seems at the outset that this report is not based on any forensic evidence but on computer modelling. Hmmm....pushing on.

 

eta: "....the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before Congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."  p.37

 

Right. "All" of it was was disposed of. That's insane. Oh, Bush science....it's so good. LOL

post #391 of 412

Well, I read about half of the 130 pages and it was not so enlightening.

 

I think I'm going to fall on the side of the scientists who take a lot of issue with the report.

 

The computer modeling seemed to rely on the highest possible variables, the primary hypothisis re. collapse that floor beams expanded in one direction only (without floor sagging and bowing out the building equally) doesn't seem rooted in reality, and the dismissal that explosives couldn't have been used b/c they would have been heard--and weren't--so were uniformally dismissed as a possibility (never considering the use of other common accelerants) were pretty glaring issues.

 

The fact that no metal was tested--as is routinely done in situations of *much* less importance and where buildings behave normally--is so incredibly mind boggling, as to almost be laughable.

 

Ohwell....it's all very interesting. But I shoulda cleaned out my fridge. LOL. Thanks again, Musician Dad.

post #392 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post


 


Excellent, it was my understanding that NIST did not undertake a report (initially, I guess), so I'm interested to look at that. Thank you!

 

Yes, a candle can become a torch but it needs more than variables like air. Which is my point about the buildings.

 

Oxidation produces heat that is neglible. Even in the cases of handwarmers and such a chemical reaction must take place. The metal doesn't just get exposed to air and start to super combust. Why would we build buildings out of that? Other chemicals (not normally present in these situations) could certainly be introduced to generate enough heat to compromise metal or even melt it. But metal itself reacting to a typical fire? Not as far as I know.

 

Anyway....off to read the report. Thanks again!

 


Under normal circumstances the heat produced is tiny, rapid oxidization is not a normal situation.

 

post #393 of 412

The report has far more credibility than conspiracy theorists who seem to be pulling out what ever they can to try and make their claim.

post #394 of 412

Rapid oxidation would simply be in a fire or explosion, yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In those situations, obviously, there would be much more--even significant--heat. But it's not like fire on steel or iron just results in a chemical reaction that just feeds on itself and the steel reacts. Steel is very slow to react--that's why it is so good for structures. It takes significant abuse before it is compromised--high temperatures and prolonged ones, at that.

post #395 of 412

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicianDad View Post

The report has far more credibility than conspiracy theorists who seem to be pulling out what ever they can to try and make their claim.



Well, there are other scientists who are examing the science of the report. And claiming that its pretty faulty and can't be reproduced to see if it withstands the scientific method. That doesn't seem very credible.

 

I think this is pretty common for the kind of scientific reports that were coming out of the Bush camp.

 

So, you know, credible for you. Not so much for other folks. That's OK.

 

post #396 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

Rapid oxidation would simply be in a fire or explosion, yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In those situations, obviously, there would be much more--even significant--heat. But it's not like fire on steel or iron just results in a chemical reaction that just feeds on itself and the steel reacts. Steel is very slow to react--that's why it is so good for structures. It takes significant abuse before it is compromised--high temperatures and prolonged ones, at that.



Rapid oxidation is not just a fire or explosion. Actually not even close to an explosion. An explosion is a rapid release of pressure. A fire is rapid oxidation but not the only type of rapid oxidation. Steel is iron with carbon added. In the right circumstances, carbon acts as an accelerator for iron oxidation. 

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you are looking at this with a very "this happens, and only that can happen because of it" with no consideration for other factors involved. Aside from the "it must have been thermite/explosion/something someone had to do to cause it" factors.

post #397 of 412

I'm happy to consider other factors, but I'm not sure other than air flow, I've seen too many.

 

I'm absolutely NOT saying, it's only this or it's a gov't conspiracy. Not at all.

 

I'm simply saying with regard to the fires, that based on what we know about phsyics, there would have to be some other factors at play (besides increased oxygen levels) to generate the kind of heat or reaction that would result in the VERY rare occurance (and as stated by FEMA, perhaps THE ONLY) global collapse of a building. And I hope that I'm floating out the notion for discussion and other reasonable explanations. I hope that my questioning this is coming across in the spirit it is intended....which is mostly just disbelief.

post #398 of 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

I'm happy to consider other factors, but I'm not sure other than air flow, I've seen too many.

 

I'm absolutely NOT saying, it's only this or it's a gov't conspiracy. Not at all.

 

I'm simply saying with regard to the fires, that based on what we know about phsyics, there would have to be some other factors at play (besides increased oxygen levels) to generate the kind of heat or reaction that would result in the VERY rare occurance (and as stated by FEMA, perhaps THE ONLY) global collapse of a building. And I hope that I'm floating out the notion for discussion and other reasonable explanations. I hope that my questioning this is coming across in the spirit it is intended....which is mostly just disbelief.

 

Well, I dunno maybe there was something creating a sulfur compound. We don't know exactly what was in the fire.
 

 

post #399 of 412

Yeah, the not knowing is kind of the sticking point for me w/ regards to this. Our abilities to do forensic arson investigations are phenomenal. We could know exactly what was in that fire. And when it burned and how long and hot and what started it, etc., etc. As far as I can tell we didn't endeavor to find out any of that information--and truly until now I had assumed that extensive forensic testing had been done. It's incredible to me. It would be shocking to me if it had been just a regular building on a regular day under regular circumstances.

 

I'm pretty much stuck on gross incompetence or the kind of Bush arrogance that we saw so much of that said, "I have faith in what happened, don't need no details."  And that probably scares me more than the "inside job" theory.

post #400 of 412

80 killed in suicide bombing in Pakistan to avenge bin Laden's death and punish Pakistan for allowing US in.... hoo boy.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110513/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News