What brought the towers down???

[Large Sarge]

see how the folks here really feel about it.

[Halophyte]

Unfortunately "feelings" have little to do with physics.

I obstain from voting on emotions.


.

[GREENSILVERHORN]

Thats gotta be the best post all year.

[Ponce Cuba]

Lollllllllllll 100%

[hoarder]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

Unfortunately "feelings" have little to do with physics.

I obstain from voting on emotions.


.

Reality exists independently of how many people vote for it. But I voted anyway!

[PatColo]

www.WTC7.net

This is an outrage!


www.WTC7.net

The poll is bogus... more controlled opposition.


www.WTC7.net

Where is the choice about magic Muslim boxcutters, and pristine passports, flying out the windshields of the aircrafts with such velocity that they pinballed between all the critical steel support columns, severing them like a hot knife through butter before pinging to the next column ! ? ! ? ! ? whereafter the 3 buildings collapsed straight down into their own footprints ! ? ! ?


www.WTC7.net

To say nothing of the passport and/or boxcutter which flew 2 blocks away to WTC7 and did the same amazing ter´st miracle on all WTC7´s steel support columns, right before the very eyes of the CIA SEC Secret Service FBI and NYC Emergency Control Bunker personnel who resided in WTC7 ! ? ! ? ! ?


www.WTC7.net

You crazy man. If you´re gonna put up a PUSH POLL regarding your absurd wild eyed conspiracy theories about controlled demolitions, at least make it a little less, ahhhh, transparent ! ! !


www.WTC7.net

Knowhatamean, Jelly Bean ! ? ! ? ! ?


www.WTC7.net

[GoldWampum]

No conspiracy theorists in this group, eh?:character

[stringer]

uhhh, two airplanes :rolleyes:

:withstupi

[Goldhedge]

fool me once, shame on you....

fool me twice, shame on me!!!

1791 The First Bank of the United States was needed because the government had a debt from the Revolutionary War, and each state had a different form of currency. It was built while Philadelphia was still the nation's capital. Alexander Hamilton conceived of the bank to handle the colossal war debt — and to create a standard form of currency.

1811 The first National Bank lapsed in 1811 http://experts.about.com/e/a/an/Andrew_Jackson.htm

1812 War of 1812 between the US and Britain http://www.gatewayno.com/history/War1812.html

1816 the second Bank, authorized by James Madison to alleviate the economic problems caused by the war of 1812!

1829 Andrew Jacksons 1st State of the Union http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/jackson-1.html
The charter of the Bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its stock holders will most probably apply for a renewal of their privileges. In order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy in a measure involving such important principles and such deep pecuniary interests, I feel that I can not, in justice to the parties interested, too soon present it to the deliberate consideration of the Legislature and the people. Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow citizens, and it must be admitted by all that it has failed in the great end of establishing an uniform and sound currency.

1832 Andrew Jackson - Vetoed renewal of Second Bank of the US 1832
Specie Circular http://experts.about.com/e/s/sp/Specie_Circular.htm

State Banks allowed to operate.

1834 State of the Union
http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/jackson-6.html
Events have satisfied my mind, and I think the minds of the American people, that the mischiefs and dangers which flow from a national bank far over-balance all its advantages. The bold effort the present bank has made to control the Government, the distresses it has wantonly produced, the violence of which it has been the occasion in one of our cities famed for its observance of law and order, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.

...Happily it is already illustrated that the agency of such an institution is not necessary to the fiscal operations of the Government.

1835 State of the Union http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/jackson-7.html
The bank is, in fact, but one of the fruits of a system at war with the genius of all our institutions -- a system founded upon a political creed the fundamental principle of which is a distrust of the popular will as a safe regulator of political power, and whose great ultimate object and inevitable result, should it prevail, is the consolidation of all power in our system in one central government. Lavish public disbursements and corporations with exclusive privileges would be its substitutes for the original and as yet sound checks and balances of the Constitution -- the means by whose silent and secret operation a control would be exercised by the few over the political conduct of the many by first acquiring that control over the labor and earnings of the great body of the people. Wherever this spirit has effected an alliance with political power, tyranny and despotism have been the fruit. If it is ever used for the ends of government, it has to be incessantly watched, or it corrupts the sources of the public virtue and agitates the country with questions unfavorable to the harmonious and steady pursuit of its true interests.

1836 State of the Union http://www.usa-presidents.info/union/jackson-8.html
The progress of an expansion, or rather a depreciation, of the currency by excessive bank issues is always attended by a loss to the laboring classes. This portion of the community have neither time nor opportunity to watch the ebbs and flows of the money market

...The lessons taught by the Bank of the United States can not well be lost upon the American people. They will take care never again to place so tremendous a power in irresponsible hands, and it will be fortunate if they seriously consider the consequences which are likely to result on a smaller scale from the facility with which corporate powers are granted by their State governments.

History of the US money http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

1860 Lincoln elected

1861-1865 Civil War
Lincoln Assassinated

1898 The Main - Spanish American War
1913 Federal Reserve Act
1914 The Lusitainia WWI
1933 The Reichstag
1941 Pearl Harbor - WWII
1992 Ruby Ridge
1993 Waco
1995 Murrah Building - omnibus anti-terrorist bill
2001 - 911 - anti-Patriot bill
:cool1:hang out: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2timeline/start.html
http://www.weyrich.com/political_iss...stag_fire.html

[Ponce Cuba]

Gold? no "conspiracy" because we already know how it happen

[Dude]

I've read and watched a lot on the subject but have not pulled out the old slide rule to calculate personally. As an engineer, I have no doubt that the collapses were caused by the planes. The third building, I have not read enough about.

If in fact it is a conspiracy, it has to include 1000's of people that actively participated to kill not only innocent people, but sacrificed thousands of their own to...supposedly make it easier to garner support to attack Iraq?

If that be the case, the world is doomed. I do reserve the right not to believe such a thing and could never in my mind believe that I could be convinced to participate in a plot like that.

For those that are responsible, I'm sure God let the devil know to save a few ringside seats near the fireplace.

[bigjon]

Must be some kind of accident that they leased the place to a Jew and the only people who were caught red handed, high fiving, celebrating and taking each others pictures with the towers burning in the background, were Arab looking people who turned out to be Massad agents.

Released quietly and sent back to Israel.

Nothing to see here folks, move along now.

[Halophyte]

9/11 Jones and the Blast Crusade
(I didn't come up with this corny title. Blame my wife.)

(and a few comments by yours truly - Halo)

Professor Steven E. Jones is not a conspiracy theorist because, as Ryan McIlvain writes in Brigham Young University's NewsNet, "he's wearing a button-up shirt, dress slacks, matching socks. He's soft-spoken, polite - the picture of the mild-mannered professor." But how else could you describe what the Professor is peddling?

Jones published a paper on November 8, 2005 titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" He points to the building known as WTC 7, asking why it collapsed when it wasn't hit by a plane as the twin towers were. He also states that no other steel buildings have been brought down by fire, before or after September 11th.

So what is his theory? Professor Jones believes the buildings were taken down by controlled explosions.

Jones points to small puffs of dark clouds on the sides of the three buildings and compares them to the controlled explosions or "squibs" that demolition experts use to bring down a building. He links to video images of the three buildings collapsing, and points out puffs that he calls squibs. Are these indeed visual evidence of a controlled demolition, or just the random effect that occurs when a building collapses and the compressed air inside it blows out any available opening? (vertical support collapse notwithstanding) I favor the latter idea because it is simpler, and while I am certainly no demolition expert, I normally see more action than a few random puffs of smoke when a building is demolished. The controlled demolition of the Seattle Kingdome is a great example of what exposed squibs look like (because they occure before the dome collapses ?) . Other video clips of controlled demolitions don't have such visible squibs, but most other buildings were not constructed like the Kingdome. Still, in most of these clips one can see visible explosions, especially in external supporting walls. I would assume that a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers would require many more squibs than the visible (yeah, like 40 to 50 of them) puffs Professor Jones points out to support his theory.

But what do I know? I'm not an explosive demolition expert. Then again, neither is Professor Jones. (bingo !)

Jones' specific field of expertise is in fusion and sub-atomic particles. One person debating the merits of Jones' paper on a 9/11 site pointed out that all the professor's published papers to date have been on particle physics and muons. Nevertheless, let's assume for the moment that Jones knows what he's talking about. Here is some of the "evidence" the professor points out to back up his thesis, as quoted in the NewsNet article:

Pressed about the implications of his hypothesis, Jones leans back in his chair and says, "Okay, let me back up."

He mentions a few lesser-known details about the Sept. 11 attacks, appending little comments like "and that's a fact" or "and that's on tape" at several points along the way:

Larry Silverstein, WTC leaseholder, insured the buildings against terrorist attack for billions of dollars less than two months before Sept. 11, Jones says.

The towers were loaded with asbestos - "not anymore," Jones adds, "but they were. There was discussion for a long time: 'We've got to either get rid of the asbestos in these buildings or take them down and start over.'"
In the aftermath of the buildings' collapse, Silverstein said of WTC 7, "We decided to pull it." Jones says "pull" is a common demolition term. "To pull a building means you initiate the demolition."

Much of the steel from the collapsed towers was shipped to Asia for recycling, Jones says. "This was done over the objections of serious scientists and engineers (who, besides you, 4 years after the fact ?) , saying, 'Look, you're destroying evidence. We want to know how fire and damage could have possibly caused these buildings to collapse.'"

"You didn't know that, did you?" Jones says. He leans back farther in his chair. "We need an investigation," he says again.

But where is the hard proof supporting Jones' theory? David Hume famously said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," (that explains his extraordinary innuendo) so where is the smoking gun? Instead, Jones seems to believe an investigation is in order merely because his claim is so serious. Likewise, Democrats called for an investigation into the debunked memos reported on by Dan Rather of CBS. It wasn't the nature of the evidence that was being put forth (and subsequently debunked), it was the seriousness of the charge that made the Left rush to believe in baseless claims. OK, that's about as political as I'll get with this. (not me, I'm sure he's testing his credentials in the political arena, a common if-so-facto way of appropreating university funding)

It's probably also worthwhile to point out that the people who are getting most excited about Jones' paper (which has not yet been peer-reviewed, by the way) would normally not deign to give a BYU professor the time of day. But since his as-yet-unreviewed claims feed their hunger for a conspiracy, their desire for a potential whipping-boy who can take the lion's share of the blame for 9/11, they rush to embrace his claims and laud him as the hero of the hour. Shared delusion makes for strange bedfellows.

So what are the possibilities? As I see it, there are two options:

A) Islamic nutjobs hijacked four planes with the goal of causing damage. Two of those planes struck the two main World Trade Center towers, causing them--and subsequently WTC 7--to collapse. (duh, too easy)

or

B) Islamic nutjobs hijacked four planes with the goal of causing damage. Two of those planes struck the two main World Trade Center towers. Shadowy personages with unknown agendas either knew that they were coming and meticulously wired up the three buildings with carefully-placed charges to cause the buildings to implode, or the buildings had been wired up previously to take advantage of an unexpected plane striking the building. After allowing the people to leave the towers, the masterminds behind the planted charges blew up the buildings. They were so cunning that they were even able to detonate charges in locations above where the planes hit, which had been on fire for an hour. (Yippi ! We gotta winner to justify a government grant !)

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes - which were actually a diversion tactic," Jones writes in his paper; apparently he believes option B is more plausible than option A. Such a conspiracy could not be small in scope--indeed, it would have to be appallingly large--but so far, not a single person has come forward to admit that he or she did the wiring or even saw the buildings being wired for explosives. Nearly all widespread conspiracies are brought to light in this way; no large conspiracies have been able to stay so universally close-mouthed for such a long period of time.


http://www.captainscomments.com/comments/195.asp


.

[GoldWampum]

Gold? no "conspiracy" because we already know how it happen

Cheers Ponce.

[bigjon]

It sure is amazing what 20 Arabs can do when halo and reformed idealist needed a cast of thousands to do it the old fashioned way, with explosives.

Especially these Arabs, fond of titty bars, womanizing, hard drinking, real religious zealots.

Never seen, no evidence ever presented that puts them on the plane, but hey, we have that passport.

Don't show up on passenger manifests, they must have beamed aboard, with their star trek transporter.

[Halophyte]

Originally Posted by bigjon

It sure is amazing what 20 Arabs can do when halo and reformed idealist needed a cast of thousands to do it the old fashioned way, with explosives.

Let me be adult enough to direct my comments to you, instead of around you ;

I'm quite sure the folks who even care to answer your poll are prefixed with what it implies.

Popularity makes crowds, not facts.


If I recall correctly, high school physics was not a popular course.

.

[bigjon]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

Let me be adult enough to direct my comments to you, instead of around you ;

I'm quite sure the folks who even care to answer your poll are prefixed with what it implies.

Popularity makes crowds, not facts.


If I recall correctly, high school physics was not a popular course.

.

Well you were saying how you were a stickler for seeing the evidence. Show me your evidence that 20 Arabs did the deed.

I have a year of Engineering Physics, Chemistry, 2 years of calculus, vector analysis, numerical anaysis.

High school physics is a breeze.

[Halophyte]

Originally Posted by bigjon

Well you were saying how you were a stickler for seeing the evidence. Show me your evidence that 20 Arabs did the deed.

I thought it was a couple 757's ... ? I'm a stickler for physics ya' know.

Originally Posted by bigjon

I have a year of Engineering Physics, Chemistry, 2 years of calculus, vector analysis, numerical anaysis.

High school physics is a breeze.

Yeah, right. Go back to the other thread, see my freefall velocity calculations.

Let's play math Mr. Engineer.



This should be fun ...



Better yet, let's calculate the total energy of the impact - not including combustion of fuel.

We'll assume a common flight velocity for a vector constant.

I'm willing to bet I can get to + or - 3% tolerance. I'll give you a hadicap of 10% tolerance for sloppy math.

Wanna play ?


.

[PatColo]

the MISSING GOLD was no doubt also swept away on magic Muslim Ali Babba flying carpets, too.

The innocent victims of this gold theft are no doubt heavily Zionist folks, but they´re staying uncharacteristically silent about this latest historic victimhood atrocity. They took it in the chops yet again, just like in the infamous holocaust, but they´re so used to it by now, they´re being stoic about it this time.


www.WTC7.net

[bigjon]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

I thought it was a couple 757's ... ? I'm a stickler for physics ya' know.
.

The Arabs did it, now you show me how they got on the plane, what their names were?

[Ponce Cuba]

As always as far as I am concern the US ant the Zionists were the ones responsible for 911.

Tonight I saw what the world really think about the state of Israel when in the olympics their couple of ice dancers almost din't get any applause and even the commentator was very negative about them.....I felt sorry for the kids but that's the way it goes.

[Halophyte]

Originally Posted by bigjon

The Arabs did it, now you show me how they got on the plane, what their names were?

Don't duck the proposition, BJ. You're the "engineering physics" dude, remember ? Physics is a "breeze", remember ?

How can you begin to understand how the towers fell if you can't do basic algebra ?

You can't. That's why you need to rely of quacks like Dr. Jones to think for you.



That's right, I said "quack".

Remember the "Cold Fusion" scam back in the early 90's ?

Seems old Dr. Jones was in the thick of it with Pons and Fleischmann.

What a joke of junk science. I thought I remembered that name.

Jones was jumping with joy untill the Media caught on, then he backed off like the snake oil salesman he is.


At least Jones saved face for another "fact filled" venture ... while Pons and Fleischmann got egg all over their face.

Not that they didn't deserve it.

.

[AlloyDragon]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

I thought it was a couple 757's ... ? I'm a stickler for physics ya' know.



Yeah, right. Go back to the other thread, see my freefall velocity calculations.

Let's play math Mr. Engineer.



This should be fun ...



Better yet, let's calculate the total energy of the impact - not including combustion of fuel.

We'll assume a common flight velocity for a vector constant.

I'm willing to bet I can get to + or - 3% tolerance. I'll give you a hadicap of 10% tolerance for sloppy math.

Wanna play ?


.

Halophyte, why did building 7 collapse?

[PatColo]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

That's right, I said "quack".

Remember the "Cold Fusion" scam back in the early 90's ?

Seems old Dr. Jones was in the thick of it with Pons and Fleischmann.

What a joke of junk science. I thought I remembered that name.

Jones was jumping with joy untill the Media caught on, then he backed off like the snake oil salesman he is.

ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones's much more modest findings.[2] The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."



incidentally Halo you´re being kind of quiet about how the House Of Spooks aka WTC7 fell down.



Here´s a hint. Have a look at your Bible aka the 9/11 Whitewash Commission Report, with its fullest possible accounting of the events of 9/11, and let us all know what it says about WTC7´s strange collapse on 9/11 afternoon.



Go ahead. We´ll wait.

[bigjon]

Originally Posted by Halophyte

Don't duck the proposition, BJ. You're the "engineering physics" dude, remember ? Physics is a "breeze", remember ?

How can you begin to understand how the towers fell if you can't do basic algebra ?

You can't. That's why you need to rely of quacks like Dr. Jones to think for you.



That's right, I said "quack".

Remember the "Cold Fusion" scam back in the early 90's ?

Seems old Dr. Jones was in the thick of it with Pons and Fleischmann.

What a joke of junk science. I thought I remembered that name.

Jones was jumping with joy untill the Media caught on, then he backed off like the snake oil salesman he is.


At least Jones saved face for another "fact filled" venture ... while Pons and Fleischmann got egg all over their face.

Not that they didn't deserve it.

.

I'm not the one who is ducking, thats your game changing facts, changing stories.

Some stickler you are, steel softening fires (made up with no evidence) Arabs ( we just assume this because the gov says its so).
Show me the arabs, tell me all about them.

The video clearly shows dust coming from the base of the towers, before there is any of your vaunted, much theororized momentum of the top. I suppose you now claim that the supper hot fire (Your quacks assume this same hot fire) caused one floor above to pull away from the support of the upper unmoving structure.

your quacks didn't address the amount of energy that would have been expended just penetrating the outer shell, which is made of a much higher strength steel than the core.

I never claimed to be an engineer, although I was a field engineer and fixed mainframe computers for 25 years. I took engineering physics and calc I 42 years ago and the rest of the math 20 years ago. I've never used it and yes high school physics was a walk in the park. p = mv whoopee G=9.8m/s*2, boy we're really getting into the heavy stuff.

[Large Sarge]

Although PatColo has brought up some wonderful supporting evidence (mysterious passports appearing, etc), as have many others on this thread...

I seem to remember the pilots who trained our arab hijackers stating that they thoguht it was impossible for those guys to hit a building while traveling at that speed...

something to the effect of "They could barely find the controls on the plane"

now the most plausible theory I have heard is that they had a GPS tracking system w/ Remote control in one of the buildings behind the towers...

seems both planes had a trajectory to one other building, like they were aiming for this building...

Anyone remember this?
That actually hitting the building while traveling that fast would be very difficult, and they did it on their first pass...

[Tn...Andy]

I don't admit to knowing anything about engineering of large buildings...but I have seen buildings burn before.

What I find absolutely amazing, is that just ONE tower could burn and fall STRAIGHT DOWN in it's own footprint. The fact that all 3 did this takes it out of the realm of "co-incidence" and into the realm of planned effect.

Watch ANYTHING burn......from a carboard box to a building.......at some point, part of the "structure" weakens and the object rolls or leans or squats ( if not tall ) to that weakest side....in the case of these 3 buildings, AT LEAST ONE of them should have done that, and part of the building pitched off at an angle out into the rest of the NYC streets somewhere. But they didn't...thanks to TV news, we got to see what happened.....they went STRAIGHT DOWN.

I can't believe anyone could look at that and not see controlled demolition.


But to me, that is not even the real issue here.

The REAL issue is how scarey is it that we have a government that can put on such an OBVIOUS fraud and stick to it ?? I don't think they even CARE whether folks know or not.

THAT is what we really ought to be concerned about.

This goes WAY beyond the coup d`etat of Nov, 1963......now they are willing to kill thousands for purposes unknown to us.

[gpond]

Why would they demolish buildings that had already been devastated by plane crashes? I will tell you why. It was crucial to the mind control aspect -- the maximum psychological impact that only watching those buildings fall while we were being told on live TV that as many as 10,000 people were inside. (Remember how that felt? I'm sure you do!)

The images of the buildings collapsing with thousands of people inside was necessary to have the psychological impact that we are living inside of today. If anyone asks an uncomfortable question about what is going on in the world today, the answer will start with the words: "In a post-9/11 world...blah blah blah."

It was done to hypnotise a nation.

And it sure has worked.

[Tn...Andy]

Yep......it has indeed......like a big national ballgame.

Popcorn, peanuts, Souveniers.....GET YER SOUVENEIRS HERE FOLKS......

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Tn...Andy

What I find absolutely amazing, is that just ONE tower could burn and fall STRAIGHT DOWN in it's own footprint. The fact that all 3 did this takes it out of the realm of "co-incidence" and into the realm of planned effect.

...at some point, part of the "structure" weakens and the object rolls or leans or squats ( if not tall ) to that weakest side....in the case of these 3 buildings, AT LEAST ONE of them should have done that, and part of the building pitched off at an angle out into the rest of the NYC streets somewhere. But they didn't...

Ah, but one of them did. I clearly remember that the top of one of the two towers tilted precariously to one side as the collapse began. But, in defiance of the laws of conservation of momentum, inexplicably the rotation stopped and it too exploded into dust and followed the building down into its own footprint. Something pulversized that building *before* it had the opportunity to complete its sideways fall.