Have you seen this?
 

I've been relatively sceptical about the 9/11 conspiracy theories...

but I went to this link anyway, and ... it's a very geeky presentation done by a architect... and I think some engineers, I forget...

(it's PowerPoint, so you have to click from page to page, which seemed rather clunky to me in the beginning)

but take a look:
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/index.php

By the end of the material on building #7 I was genuinely surprised. By the time I watched the material on the severed columns... I wanted to put this link here so you could take a look.
.

You're not paranoid...they really are out to get you!! :shock:


Even former president Clinton, love him or hate him, the hero of the left wing said these 9/11 conspiratorial theories are just plain nuts.

Same thing goes for Bill Mahar, one of Bush's worst critics.

I take it you didn't watch the presentation...

Watch the bit on building 7.

I watched it yesterday, and again today...

I admit I did not read every page of this "presentation" but I did read enough to get see that this person or group thinks the WTC collapsed due to a controlled explosion like the ones they use to demolish buildings quickly.

I see two flaws, and to me they are major ones.

While the point of no modern steel frame building ever collapsed as a result of fire, I did not see the point made that there has never been a modern steel framed building of that size ever struck full on by a modern jet airliner that was virtually full of fuel.

Typical fires reach temps of what? Several hundred degrees. The fuel fed fires were estimated at reaching temps of what? Several thousand degrees.

The second flaw in this theory is that it usually takes months for experts at doing this to plan and place the explosives, which must be done with precision. I have a hard time seeing how the government could send in a demolition team and have them place the large quanity of explosives that it would require for the building to collapse as this group's theory says without someone noticing.

Sorry I just do not buy into this. Until I see something that uses some logic across the board I will stick to the "theory" that the steel in the building were subjected to extreme amounts of heat which caused it to weaken, even totally melt in some locations, and eventually give way. The ultimate cause of the collapse: Jumbo jets piloted by nut cases.

And there are black helicopters flying overhead :roll:
(not meant for UTURN but the post above his)

Yes, I admit that the presentation is a bit drear.... but the questions you raise are indeed addressed.

A bomber hit the Empire State Building ... it shows that later.

And, it also shows that most of the fuel from the one plane that hit was shot out the other side, so there wasn't that much left inside.

Then later on it talks about the heat from the fires from the fuel... that bit was harder for me to follow, but some fellows on some other forum found that bit the most compelling...

did you watch it far enough to see the "hot spot" material...? and the cut columns?

I went and got what one of the fellows wrote:

I'm surprised you didn't look at the presentation. I can tell that you didn't.

It's hard to follow because it's so expert-like. Being written by architects and engineers.

Also it's long.

But if you were to look at it, you would find yourself thinking...

I did look at it thank you. The WHOLE THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have also watched the documentries on the history channel and A&E. I still do not and will not buy the "conspericy theory". So like I said:
Look up, there are black helicopters everywhere :roll:

lol

sorry, but it's over 200 pages long.

you are either a speed reader or you didn't read it...

how do you explain the fact it fell down precisely into its own foot print?

Why is this demolition expert so unbelieving?
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-51.php

(you have to click on his picture, I think, to watch the video)

I can see why you don't want to believe it.

Ever hear of cable internet? The speed is amazing.
Plus, I have seen this before you posted it. Just because you post something dosn't mean that it is new to the web. So, yes I have seen the whole thing before.
And once again:
Look out for the Black Helicopters over head
Big brother is watching you
They are ever where :roll:
And who cares if I don't believe the "Conspericy Theroy". Just because you believe it does not mean that I have to.

oh. right. I see your point.

But are you trying to say that the cable internet thing explains how BBC was reporting the collapse of building 7 with building 7 standing in the background?

and, what about the Silverstein angle?

I think you need to learn how to understand what you read. Cable internet was my answer to your question about how I read it so fast. Guess you have no sense of humor also. And read the end of my post, one more time:
I DON"T CARE ABOUT THE "CONSPERICY THEROY"!!!!!!!!!!!

oh... funny. I'm slow. Sorry. It was a good joke, I didn't get it. Thanks for explaining.

Yes, I can understand not wanting to face the conspiracy... not a fun thing to think about.

Consider, the severed columns are from a jumbo jet hitting the buildings at nearly 600 mph, those metal wings moving that fast are like a knife. I remember a tower just outside DC collapsing years ago, it pancaked onto itself just like the WTC's did. By the time a 100 story building finishes pancaking, there is enough force at the bottom of outward air pressure that is the same as a very large bomb going off. That would also explain the "falling within it's footprint" and demolishing Building 7. The fire's were also burning at over 2,000 degrees Celsius, in Farenheit terms, that is nearly 4,000 degrees aka, HOT. Steel melts at a much lesser temp. Once one floor gave out due to the steel melting thru the support columns, it was game over for each building. Each floor supports the next as they go up when one goes, each floor above goes and causes that pancake effect.

These people are nuts who are afraid of the truth, you cannot deny the video of a plane hitting the Towers.

oh dear, Mr. Ford... you read it?

the severed columns were way down, 7 stories under ground, by elevator shafts. and the severing is precise. absolutely precise... the same way it always is in demolitions.
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-125.php

look at the pictures and listen to the guy who works with controlled demoltion...

the fire thing is shown to not have been anywhere near as hot as you believe it to have been. Plus, it was nearly put out in building 7, and when you listen to the firefighters on the tapes, they are reporting having the fire in the other building just about put out.

It's a really hard presentation to go through... it's sort of dry. But if you go through it, page by page... it certainly raises uncomfortable questions.

Take the tinfoil off your head.... :roll: :roll: What a crackpot !!!

This was just posted on another forum where I posted the link:

Ahhhh, funny you should mention...
http://www.health-boundaries-bite.co...he-Garden.html

That I have no real problem believing as possible as far as the statement goes.

Even the government admits that looking back all of the pieces of that puzzle were there long before, but the problem was that this agency had a small part, that agency had another part, and so forth, and IMHO thanks to the competition for funding each of the agencies wanted to whole story so they could present it themselves and look like heroes and thereby garner a bigger chunk of the pie. Also with the over all bureaucratic BS that goes on, it would not come as any surprise to me if someone came forth as said "Look sometime in the next week or two (or even if they said on 9/11) there will be a mass hijacking of several airliners with the intent of using them as WMD's." The govt would more than likely respond with thanks for the information now come back when you can tell us exactly which flights are going to be hijacked, who the hijackers are, what brand and color of undies they will be wearing that day and who will be or was the last person they are going to have sex with before killing themselves."

As far as the building 7 collapse goes, I think it would be virtually impossible for anyone to know for certain what would happen when two large buildings collapse in a complex such as that.

I respect your view.

Very much.

I think that one thing that makes it hard to discuss this is that the words are used different ways by different people with different levels of expertise.

After I finally grasped what a pancaked building looks like, then I began to see that the WTC buildings weren't "pancaked" --

Because I so believed the images I saw on 9/11 were a particular thing, it's hard to begin to see what I believed differently.

I don't question the existence of the planes. The planes were there. But the phenominal thing is that the planes were anticipated and the demolition charges were set to go off in relation to the planes...

For the longest time I couldn't get why building 7 would have been blown up. I had to watch that segment repeatedly before I actually heard that the CIA ect. were housed in the building, and that when it was blown up so too was all evidence of the planning...

the terrorist guys were dupes.

It's an interesting part of the presentation where the designer of the WTC talks about how the buildings were in fact designed to withstand impact by a plane....

the buildings didn't collapse... look at the pictures... they exploded.

Listen to the firemen and people who talk about the sound of the explosions, and feeling them...

Buildings are removed by controlled demolition all the time, and controlled demolition of one building doesn't cause others near it to demolish...

Do you really believe that any building could withstand a direct hit from a commercial plane? was the building made out of rubber? was the plane supposed to just bounce off? or maybe it had a magical force field around it?
so the designer said it could withstand it. the designer of the titanic said the ship was unsinkable.. OH NO!! I bet that was a government conspiracy too

Yes. Did you watch the presentation? Did you see how a bomber hit the Empire State Building?

Did you see how the WTC designer took into account the building being hit by a plane?

the presentation is a bit hard to watch because of the level of information, but the videos throughout are easier to watch.

Watch it... then see what you think...



The designer, whose name I forget, didn't say the building was indestructable. He simply took the mass and velocity of a plane and calculated that the building could withstand that.

And, clearly the buildings did withstand the impact. The planes were like arrows flying into a human being.

The firemen are heard to be saying the fires were being brought under control...

The presentation uses eye witness accounts... and there is a video that has sound of the explosions...

Some of these idoits claim it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, well Got news for you, My sister watched it fly over her head into the Pentagon, a Passenger Plane, Not a Missile.

Exactly!

the planes were real.

I'm feeling a lot of pressure to watch this.

Could this be a conspiracy theory to get us to believe in a conspiracy theory?

Theoretically, some folks will conspire to theorize on conspiracies. In theory, though, conspiring only leads to theories of conspired theorizing. Of course, this is only my theory. 8)

very clever. :)

Okay. I give up.

I made myself watch it. I expected it to be flimsy. I was a bit hard to convince. I got carried away with treating my neighbor like myself. sorry.

The problem with calculations is that they are just that, calculations, no hard facts of what the building will stand up to. He prolly calculated on a plane flying in at about 300 mph, not double that. The appeared explosions that took place, were from the pancaking effect. Once one floor gave way, you had an enormous weight dropping 20 feet, there is your "explosion" 70 floors up. The rumbling, feeling of an explosion if the building giving away and falling when it's spine breaks. Ever been on the scene of an implosion?? One heck of a rumble as the buildings come down and you don't even feel the dynamite charges going off. UTurn answered the question on Building 7, never has such 2 large buildings ever come down that we have a set precedent on what would happen to buildings around them. Non-nut case physic people can tell you that the downward rush of the 2 Towers exerted enough outward air pressure at the bottom that anything near them would be destroyed as if a bomb went off. BTW, there was also a CIA and FBI office in the Towers.

Your severed columns at ground level are again, from the planes. The entire building was shook all the way down to the core when they hit. The top of the building swayed a major amount, from the looks of it more than 75 feet, it normally sways prolly 20 feet on a windy day. No controlled explosions were set off, not enough time to set charges precisely unless down in the days leading up to 9/11 at which someone would have noticed and would have come out before now about it.

The fires were not being brought under control, the firemen could not get up to them. They could get 1 or 2 floors but not all of the 6 or more floors the fires were burning on. Just listen to the people who were trapped on floors above that made it out alive, they passed the firefighters on their way up. Some of the people said they were just reaching ground level when the buildings started falling, not enough time to even come close to bringing the fires under control.

I will go with UTurn on the :"Look sometime in the next week or two (or even if they said on 9/11) there will be a mass hijacking of several airliners with the intent of using them as WMD's." We did know, but what were we supposed to do, ground all planes that day?? We had no idea what flights, airports or what they even looked like. We did take the Pacific plot seriously and stopped it before it happened because we were given exact info on which flights to look out for.

I understand what you are saying, and the part about knowing and not knowing exactly enough so that it wasn't possible to ground all planes... that's what I always thought.

Here is the link to the precise part of the presentation about the diagonally severed columns:
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-125.php

Here's the link about designing the building to withstand impact of a jet hitting at any location on the building:
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-87.php

I'll go see if I can find the page where the firemen are talking about having the fires nearly under control...

Did you ever see the movie Gargoyles? at the end, they provide evidence to prove that gargoyles really exist, it's very convincing.

And don't forget...Blair Witch, Sasquatch (Bigfoot), and the Loch Ness. :lol: :P

But what about the firemen?

http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-120.php

why do you think there were so many reports of explosions?
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/ae911-160.php

Well, you guys get points (I hope I'm not speaking too soon)...

I got banned for posting the Architects and Engineers presentation on a stock trading forum:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showth...7&goto=newpost


It was interesting in that without looking at the presentation many assumed that the conspiracry theory under discussion was that there were no planes, which was thoroughly debunked by Poplular Mechanics.

The majority of the traders who responded saying what an idiot I must be to believe this trash had obviously not looked at the A and E presentation...

I was surprised to be banned for posting the topic.

And I applaud you for discussing it without banning me. (hopefully that continues to be true)

I doubt you'll ever get banned for voicing your opinion. You're not hurting anyone or their feelings, at least not to my knowledge. Even if you were, it's America, and that's your opinion. :wink:

My opinion, is that you should go back to being the skeptic that you were previously. Do you know how easy it is to manipulate an audio/visual presentation?

:)

Whew!

My belief in you guys is well placed.

Yes, I know how easy it is to manipulate audio visual... but there are over 300 pages to the presentation, and much of it consists of original clips from the time...

I still can't find the part where the fireman said they had the fires about under control, that the flames were still licking the wall... but I'll keep looking.

To me, the questions raised by the Architects and Engineers presentation that are the most compelling are:

1. How did BBC, Giuliani and others know that building 7 was going to collapse before it did... especially since it was not hit by a plane...?

2. What caused the diagonal cuts to the columns 7 stories below ground?

3. How did it happen that there were hot spots and molten steel over a week after the disaster if thermite (which is not hindered by water) were not used?

Consider, I saw something a bit ago about some conspiracy's that were so outlandish that I had to laugh. Some were major leaps in faith where you had to forget what you saw on TV that day. I believe one of the groups were students from Columbia University. They made a great case for their belief as to what really happened but alas, I remembered what I saw on Live TV that day which competely trashed their theory. None of these theory's explain why we would destroy our own buildings in New York without finding a legit theory for the Pentagon getting hit also. Seems odd that we could mobilize a team so quickly in New York to bring those Towers down but not do anymore to the Pentagon.

What about the theory of the one flight being shot down over PA?? Yes, scrambled fighter jets could get to Mach 1 and be over Somerset, PA in just minutes from DC but it doesn't explain the cockpit recorder. Lot of people hold this theory that it was shot down yet the voice recorder tells a different story. You hear 2 hijackers, one asks if they should crash it(the plane,) the other says to hold on a minute due to some commotion that can be heard in the background. Minute later, you hear something beating on something and 1 hijacker yells to put it down, take it down, crash it now. The data recorder then shows the plane rolling nearly upside down and doing a nosedive. No way do you have a coincidental missile shot from a jet hitting at the exact same time like the theory nuts want you to believe.