Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Bin Laden Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
05-15-2011 06:46 PM
beckybird

Thank you for the articles, Monkey'sMom! I will bookmark the links to read later. I also have some information on the steel from Building 7, and I'll try to make a post either late tonight or tomorrow morning.

 

Ok, now off to finish the movie I started watching last Friday.....maybe I can finish it this time without falling asleep lol!

05-15-2011 04:04 AM
monkey's mom

This NIST Metallurgical Study

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf 

 

indicates that they did have recovered pieces of steel from Bldgs. 1 and 2 (236 pieces or 25-50% of the total steel used, according to them), but no steel from Bldg. 7.

 

All very interesting.

05-14-2011 08:51 PM
monkey's mom

Very interesting article:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html 

 

NY Times: A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TOWERS; Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall

By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 25, 2001

Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide. 

 

[snip]

 

In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. 

 

[snip]

 

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. ''I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling,'' Dr. Mowrer said. 

 

[snip]

 

National organizations charged with addressing building and fire safety issues have sent letters urging the federal government to invest as much as $15 million a year to study the vulnerability of buildings to terrorist attacks and possible changes to fire and safety standards.

''There is an urgent and critical need to determine the lessons to be learned from these events,'' reads a letter from the American Society of Civil Engineers, dated Nov. 15. 

 

####

 

This is a very good article and well worth the read, imho. Lots of questions and concerns raised.

05-14-2011 07:33 PM
monkey's mom

This is an interesting article from Worcester Poly Tech ("widely recognized as the home of the world's premier program for research and education in the field of fire and fire protection engineering.")

 

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel 

 

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

 

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.  

 

and

 

 

Quote:

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community. 

 

So it seems that some forensic testing was initially done and the findings were highly irregular. This was early on, it seems, in the post-analysis process. But even these guys were saying, "Maybe it's acid rain." But it was *something* out of the ordinary. Was this really just dropped from here? What I'm finding seems to point to that. That at this point the steel from all the sites was recycled and not examined. Does anyone know?

 

05-14-2011 06:56 PM
monkey's mom

I get all that. It was a chaotic and unprecedented event and time, for sure.

 

But for me, I can't get past the fact that the bare minimum of what we do in normal crime scene, building failure, hi-jacking events was not done. The bare minimum. Again, FOR ME (well, and hundreds of experts in these fields, some of whom participated in the gov't analysis), it is really quite shocking given how vital this information is to our national security. Our government said it was "outfoxed" and totally taken by surprise.....how could we not want to dot every i and cross every t to figure out how that happened and to prevent it from happening again? 

 

At a minimum it points to a level of incompetence and lack of leadership that is extraordinary. If workers at the site--in the burning wreckage and chaos--were able to number and catalog the pieces of steel in the order they recovered them, how could our government not had the wherewithal to set them aside and do the kind of forensic work that would tell them almost exactly what happened? Versus, arrange to have them shipped halfway across the globe for recycling. Have we done the introspection to see what went wrong with all these blunders? I don't know. Did people lose their jobs? Again, I don't know the answer to that.

 

Building 7, by the way, was not badly damaged by debris. The official reports claim as much and the videos show some damage, but not significant. Other Trade Center buildings were hugely damaged by debris--like, ripped in half damaged. And completely gutted by fires. But they still stood. Truly, it was highly, highly unusual for that building 7 to have fallen.

05-14-2011 05:13 PM
happysmileylady

When talking about why things were done the way they were done that day and in the days following, I think we need to remember what had happened.

 

On the morning of 9/11/01, FOUR commercial jets were hijacked.  FOUR.  That alone had never happened before.  From a security standpoint, that alone is a big priority, figuring out how that many planes were hijacked at basically the same time.

 

Two of those planes were intentionally flown into two of the biggest buildings in the US, buildings over 100 stories tall.  Again, has never happened before.  Rescue plans didn't cover that sort of thing.  They were simply unable to rescue many people, before the towers came down, there were people that rescue workers already knew could not be saved.

 

One of those planes was intentionally flown into the pentagon.  One of the most important buildings to the defense department.

 

Al-Queda claimed responsibility for it.  Believe them or not, they claimed it.

 

Every single plane in the US was grounded.  Every single one.  Every single airport was refitted with new security measures.  Have you ever been at the airport when one or two flights gets cancelled?  Imagine that chaos times every single plane in the US.  Every flight headed to the US was prevented from landing in the US, so flights were rerouted to Canada, Mexico, some turned around and headed back where they came from.  People were stranded all over the worldSome planes were low on fuel.  I have heard that some pilots, low on fuel, also claimed they had been hijacked, just to be able to get on the ground fast, due to their fuel situation.  I can't substantiate that, that's just something I had heard.

 

Rumors were flying everywhere, despite or maybe because of this day and age of immediate news and live video and such.  Some people thought the Sears Tower had been hit.  People thought more planes had been hijacked.  People thought the White House had been hit. 

 

Power was out in many places in NY.  Thousands of people were missing.  Phone lines were overloaded and communications were difficult.  Many businesses in the area were damaged and or destroyed. 

 

And then, in November, another plane crashed in NYC.  The first thought is of course that it was terrorism, and Al-Queda claimed it too, but it was later discovered to be pilot error.  But I don't think it can be dismissed when talking about the whys and hows of the investigation, since clean up and investigation were still going on when it happened.

 

 

Now, with all that going on, with the massive recovery that has to take place from all that...I think it makes perfect sense for the collapse of a building known to be damaged as a result of the two larger buildings coming down, to be relegated to low priority.  There was so much else that was just more important.  There was SO SO SO much going on that day and in the months afterwards.  If mistakes weren't made and if parts weren't skipped over...THAT would be the weird thing. 

 

 

05-14-2011 07:20 AM
beckybird

Monkey'sMom, that is a good question, and I don't know the answer. That is something I would like to know as well. Time to start digging!

 

As for the change in procedure, this is what I found:

"the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames. Mr. Rumsfeld claimed at a previous commission hearing that protection against attack inside the homeland was not his responsibility. It was, he said, "a law-enforcement issue." Why, in that case, did he take onto himself the responsibility of approving NORAD’s deployment of fighter planes?" New York Observer(06/21/04)

 

Again, I can't tell you what I think of Rumsfeld, so you should just research him and make your own opinion :) I find it difficult to believe Rumsfeld, especially since this recent interview. He claims he had never heard of Building 7. What? I don't believe that for a minute! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns-reMDq1iw

And, whether you love or hate Aspartame, you have Rumsfeld to thank. (Research the way it was approved for human consumption, and how they knew it was hazardous before approving it.)

05-13-2011 08:07 PM
Amatullah0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Monkey's Mom, that is awful news, but thank you for sharing the link.

(I was going to make a humorous post, but in light of the recent news, I won't make jokes.)

 

This is puzzle piece #2, to add to piece #1 (Bush brother security company)

 

  • The most important Government Action which led to the success of the

          9/11 destruction inside USA was the change in NORAD hijacking protocol

          before 9/11.    ****Changed 3 months before 9/11****

 

What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.

 

Uhhhhhh, all I'm going to say is do some research on Rumsfeld for yourself. Not going to say anything bad about him.

 

 


what was the change?

 

05-13-2011 02:25 PM
monkey's mom

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkey's mom View Post

 

 

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.

 

 



I did not recall correctly. Jet fuel can get up around 1800 degrees. Steel melts up around 2750 degrees.

 

Which just makes the whole thing all the more mystifying--a 2,000 degree difference between typical office fire and enormous steel damage resulting in collapse.

 

BeckyBird, thanks for the info. I'm interested to look at that further.

 

Mineta also said in another video that he was on the phone with the FAA tracking the Pentagon plane, was the conversation he overheard with Cheney (described in the testimony) happening at the sime time? I wasn't clear on that. And even if he was wrong about Cheney (or lying or whatever), was the FAA informing other folks? (Do we even know?)

 

05-13-2011 11:28 AM
beckybird

Piece #4........

 

The Norman Mineta testimony, shown in the above post, was OMITTED from the final 9/11 Commission Report.

 

In ANY murder case, why on earth would you leave out witness evidence, even if you thought the witness were wrong? His word against Cheney''s I guess. Since Cheney was the Vice President, that automatically means he is of superior morals, and would not lie.

 

Even If they thought Mineta were wrong, that was no reason to omit his testimony.

 

 

05-13-2011 11:21 AM
beckybird

Piece #3

 

Testimony of Norman Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation. Eyewitness to orders given by Dick Cheney on 9/11, NOT to shoot down the plane headed for the Pentagon. Why did Cheney give these orders?

 

This is his official testimony, taped on C-SPAN....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlM8Sui6-X0

 

 

Here is an interview with Mineta.  Please please please I beg all of you to watch this video! You can't just label us all "conspiracy theorists" when members of our own government are testifying in favor of these theories!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE

 

 

05-13-2011 10:47 AM
beckybird

Monkey's Mom, that is awful news, but thank you for sharing the link.

(I was going to make a humorous post, but in light of the recent news, I won't make jokes.)

 

This is puzzle piece #2, to add to piece #1 (Bush brother security company)

 

  • The most important Government Action which led to the success of the

          9/11 destruction inside USA was the change in NORAD hijacking protocol

          before 9/11.    ****Changed 3 months before 9/11****

 

What’s more, the decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense had been changed in June of 2001. Now, instead of NORAD’s military commanders being able to issue the command to launch fighter jets, approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This change is extremely significant, because Mr. Rumsfeld claims to have been "out of the loop" nearly the entire morning of 9/11. He isn’t on the record as having given any orders that morning. In fact, he didn’t even go to the White House situation room; he had to walk to the window of his office in the Pentagon to see that the country’s military headquarters was in flames.

 

Uhhhhhh, all I'm going to say is do some research on Rumsfeld for yourself. Not going to say anything bad about him.

 

 

05-13-2011 05:08 AM
monkey's mom

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 

05-13-2011 04:09 AM
monkey's mom

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.

05-12-2011 09:02 PM
MusicianDad

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.
 

 

05-12-2011 06:07 PM
monkey's mom

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.

05-12-2011 05:42 PM
MusicianDad

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.

05-12-2011 05:10 PM
monkey's mom

 

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.

 

05-12-2011 05:08 PM
monkey's mom

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.

05-12-2011 05:00 PM
MusicianDad

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.

05-12-2011 04:57 PM
MusicianDad

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.

 

05-12-2011 04:09 PM
monkey's mom

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.

05-12-2011 12:31 PM
monkey's mom

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

05-12-2011 12:13 PM
monkey's mom


 

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!

 

05-12-2011 12:01 PM
MusicianDad

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.

 

 

 

05-12-2011 11:27 AM
hakeber

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?

05-12-2011 10:28 AM
beckybird

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

05-12-2011 10:24 AM
monkey's mom

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.

05-12-2011 10:15 AM
beckybird

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.

05-12-2011 10:02 AM
monkey's mom



 

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? 


 

 

This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off