Quake3World

remember...never in history before and after has a steel skyscraper collapsed from fire...

and don't mention the plane impact becuz everyone agrees the impacts didn't attribute to the collpses at all...100% fire is the us claim...lol

and there have been much worse fires...the madrid building was.'t even steel...and wtc was built oversafe and over standards and codes...that also includes wtc7 which wasn't hit by any plane and very little debris...note wtc7 was farther away from the towers then many other buildings which didn't collapse....

WTC7 can be conveniently ignored. It housed one of the government's Emergency Command Centers, so obviously they don't have to tell us why it fell down without being hit.

exactly...and 2 floors in wtc7 were reinforced with blast proof glass and other stuff a few months before 911...so one could have easily wathced the towers fall in complete safety from those two floors...hmmm maybe thats where the demolition was executed...then they had to destroy the evidence...

Freakaloin wrote:remember...never in history before and after has a steel skyscraper collapsed from fire...

Never in history before has a building been ablaze with jet fuel. Doesn't really matter though, they still fell. Or did they not really, Freakaloin... they're stilling standing right? No wait... they never existed!

Freakaloin wrote:...the madrid building wasn't even steel...

Actually it was/is built from steel concrete, which as a matter of principle makes it way more resistable against fire than a steel based structure. WTC was mainly a steel structure which additionally was lacking of fire protective coating --> even less resistance against the fire.

lol...there was fire protective coating in the towers...don't be a dillweed...

...even if it were coated, steel still is a weak material if it comes to fire.

chopov wrote:...even if it were coated, steel still is a weak material if it comes to fire.

No it's not. Even a tiny piece of steel has to be stuffed under super hot coals to affect it's structural properties. Open flame can not melt steel.

But all these physical evidence (or lack thereof) arguments are just a lark. The remains of the towers were swept up and carried away immediately after the attacks, and no one was ever allowed to thoroughly inspect them. You show me some prominent civil engineer that ever actually inspected all the debris, and I'll believe what he says, as long as he doesn't work with the administration.

Saying why they did or didn't fall is complete speculation -- on both sides of the argument. Just because someone has an engineering degree or experience with structural damage, doesn't make a shit's worth of difference if he never put his hands on the debris.

How many automotive engineers do you know who can determine the cause of a car fire without ever being able to look at the car?
How many arson investigators can determine the cause of a house fire without ever being allowed inside of it?

The people who argue against all these 'conspiracy theories' are just as sheep-like as the people who argue for them, based on some unkown physical evidence.

If people were even curious, they would research into the obvious contradictions and coincidences of 9/11, like the perfectly timed training exercises that pulled every nearby fighter jet away from new york that day (which has never happened before), and the fact that Cheney was the one in charge of all such exercises, by a presidential executive order issued several months beforehand. Or the fact that FAA officials have testified that there were extra blips on their radar screens because of the exercise, preventing them from telling which hijacks were real, and which were part of the exercises. Or why the jets that finally were scrambled, flew straight out over the atlantic ocean and circled before coming back - and did so at low speeds - instead of flying towards the threats that were already known to be in the air. Or WTC7's collapse, which strangely nobody seems to care about the cause of.

The official story is a conspiracy theory by definition, so what's wrong with the others? None of them have ever been proven to be true, including the official one.

okay nitwits...explain why the owner of the buildings says this about wtc7?
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Take note Freakaloin... Rook is someone that can argue his point and argue it effectively, all the while refraining from accusing others of being morons and dumbos. If you really wanted to express your point of view and ultimately get your point across, you need to learn how to speak to others with respect. So sit back and let r00k be your mentor.

Thanks for saving the thread Rook. Let the debates begin.

Well thanks, but it seems more like when I post something, threads tend to immediately die.

And pretty often, I don't have the time to dig up links to articles I read months ago, so everybody winds up thinking I must troll the same sites as Geoff does.

I just wish more people would at least be curious. It doesn't seem that radical to me to demand an actual investigation into the biggest criminal act in our history. There was never an investigation.

There was never an investigation.

ROOk: What about the 9/11 comission thingy?

Ok Rook, answer me a question... It's a very simple question. I asked this the last time this subject came up, before q3w died, and I didn't get an answer back from anyone... Here goes:

Let's say that 9/11 wasn't a big act of terror, but more of a domestic "sleight of hand", if you will... Was 9/11 worth the price of democracizing the Middle East?

what about the warren comission thingy?

redfella wrote:ROOk: What about the 9/11 comission thingy?

That wasn't an investigation. That was several Bush-appointed politicians trying to explain what they thought were the governments problems, and being forced under pressure to come up with some sort of reform to make things better.

There was never even a police officer involved in an investigation, much less FBI or counter-terrorism forces.

Asking the 9/11 Commission to perform an investigation would be closer to the equivalent of asking your mayor to investigate homicides and arsons. Don't you think?

lol...no no0b...theres this stuff called oil...look into it...

u actually believe bush believes his own rhetoric? good one...

R00k wrote:No it's not. Even a tiny piece of steel has to be stuffed under super hot coals to affect it's structural properties. Open flame can not melt steel.

"under super hot coal".....sounds perfectly scientific :icon26:

Steel carriers in buildings start to deform at 800 °C. This temperature can easily been reached during a fire, especially when kerosene is involved. And then factor in the extreme load pressing down on the "groggy" steel beams from the above floors...

redfella wrote:Ok Rook, answer me a question... It's a very simple question. I asked this the last time this subject came up, before q3w died, and I didn't get an answer back from anyone... Here goes:

Let's say that 9/11 wasn't a big act of terror, but more of a domestic "sleight of hand", if you will... Was 9/11 worth the price of democracizing the Middle East?

Well that would be a good question. Granted, it would still be speculation to say that it was domestic sleight of hand without a real investigation. But if that's what it was, and it was proven to be, then you would have to start talking about motives. Or, to be more accurate, motives would be a large part of the investigation, just as it is in any homicide or other criminal investigation.

And if I were looking for a motive in this case, especially considering Cheney's ultra-secret energy task force meeting before 9/11, and the maps of the Middle East oil fields they used (which were fairly recently released), I would have to seriously consider former LAPD Narcotics Officer Mike Ruppert's theory, that Peak Oil is the biggest factor driving all of our foreign policy right now. And if there were a motive behind the 'sleight of hand' then that is the biggest issue facing our country right now - as well as the rest of the world, which you can see from China's actions with Venezuela and Brazil and India and Russia, and all the other huge oil deals being worked in the last couple of years. We are just the only country who is approaching the issue militarily.

In other words, every major global player right now is plotting and scrambing for oil in one way or another - this much is all over the news.
Somehow, we are not diplomatically planning and forming strategic alliances the way the rest of the world is, but as luck would have it, we are fighting our asses off in the region that has most of the world's oil.

Then you look at Cheney, who said himself under the first Bush administration, that marching into Baghdad would be a mistake, and that removing Saddam Hussein would never be worth the price we would have to pay in lives and dollars to do it. Fast forward a few years, and he's working for Halliburton. Then he starts making speeches about how Iraq and Iran need to be open for American oil businesses.

Then he helps Bush with his campaign. Bush asks Cheney to help him pick a Vice President, and Cheney picks himself. Several months later, Cheney has a secret meeting with major oil executives, where they pore over maps of middle east oil fields, and staunchly and repeatedly refuses to allow anyone to know what was discussed.

Then, several months later, a massive attack is launched against our country, which by all measures should have and could have been stopped -- except for the fact that all of our fighter jets were coincidentally pulled out of the country on training exercises that day. And, again coincidentally, Cheney happens to be in control of all such exercises according to a presidential executive order issued several months beforehand.

Then you see the administration attempting to block any investigation into the incident, but under intense pressure finally selecting a hand-picked commission to tell the country what was systematically and organizationally wrong with our government to allow such a thing to happen.

All this in light of the fact that we were working on a deal with the Taliban for a trans-Afghan pipeline, which fell through immediately before 9/11 because they felt they were being ripped off in the deal. You may have heard the quote before of one of our officials telling them that they can have a "carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs."

So 9/11 happens, we immediately invade Afghanistan and take over the government, and who just happens to be put in a position of power there, but one of the actual executives from the oil company (Unocal I believe) which was working on the pipeline deal in Afghanistan to start with.

I've done a lot of research and reading and, once again, I doubt I will have time to give links to all the articles I've read to support this. But in my opinion, at the absolute least, all these facts demand an actual investigation into what really happened; not a group of partisan politicians -- some of whom themselves have serious conflicts of interest issues, and even a few who should have rightly been called as witnesses themselves -- to explain to the country how they can make things better for us.

chopov wrote:

R00k wrote:No it's not. Even a tiny piece of steel has to be stuffed under super hot coals to affect it's structural properties. Open flame can not melt steel.

"under super hot coal".....sounds perfectly scientific :icon26:

Steel carriers in buildings start to deform at 800 °C. This temperature can easily been reached during a fire, especially when kerosene is involved. And then factor in the extreme load pressing down on the "groggy" steel beams from the above floors...

I don't know what temperature at which steel begins to "deform" (another great scientific term), but it melts at around 1500° C.

I don't claim to be a structural or civil engineer, so I try not to debate these things. Whether the WTC fell from "deformed" steel, or from some perceived explosion (which I saw a NYC firefighter say that he heard in the building, btw) is really irrelevant to me. They came down, and no amount of discussing it on a message board is going to come any closer to the physical reason of why they collapsed.

I am talking about why the attacks happened the way they did.

redfella wrote:Ok Rook, answer me a question... It's a very simple question. I asked this the last time this subject came up, before q3w died, and I didn't get an answer back from anyone... Here goes:

Let's say that 9/11 wasn't a big act of terror, but more of a domestic "sleight of hand", if you will... Was 9/11 worth the price of democracizing the Middle East?

To answer your original, simple question: No, I don't believe that it was worth it, but I think that's obvious. I also think it's irrelevant.
The question would be, would the perceived perpetrators or facilitators believe that it was worth it? And who can know the mind of a man?

Let me rephrase this (and just humor me a bit here); assuming that the 'sleight of hand' was done with true intentions to democrasize the Middle East, do you think it was worth it? Under this assumption, would not the freeing of millions of oppressed people in certain Middle Eastern countries be certainly a good thing? Would it not be a good thing to win the battle of hearts and minds in this region, so that they will somewhat favor America and what it stands for? ...As opposed to continuing to allow hate for the West to be compounded exponentially day in and day out by the repressive regimes that foster these feelings towards their young?

I'm a bit of an idealist... But, could it really be that shocking if Bush was really trying to change the world, for the good? Yes, I understand the part oil plays into this, so dont get me wrong there... But I don't think it's ALL about oil. That would be an extremely shallow and near-sighted mistake to make if all this was for oil.

redfella wrote:Let me rephrase this (and just humor me a bit here); assuming that the 'sleight of hand' was done with true intentions to democrasize the Middle East, do you think it was worth it? Under this assumption, would not the freeing of millions of oppressed people in certain Middle Eastern countries be certainly a good thing? Would it not be a good thing to win the battle of hearts and minds in this region, so that they will somewhat favor America and what it stands for? ...As opposed to continuing to allow hate for the West to be compounded exponentially day in and day out by the repressive regimes that foster these feelings towards their young?

I'm a bit of an idealist... But, could it really be that shocking if Bush was really trying to change the world, for the good? Yes, I understand the part oil plays into this, so dont get me wrong there... But I don't think it's ALL about oil. That would be an extremely shallow and near-sighted mistake to make if all this was for oil.

jesus shut up...