Now see... this kind of thing becomes difficult for skeptics...

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Socrates' post='990684' date='May 25 2006, 06:32 PM']
With all due respect, Gore Vidal is a raving left-wing lunatic (as well as a militant homosexual and vehement anti-Christian). (He wrote a "funny" novel, [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140231196/qid=1148606280/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2323353-4496057?s=books&v=glance&n=283155"][i]Live from Golgotha : The Gospel According to Gore Vidal[/i][/url], mocking the Church, and portraying St. Paul and the early Church as flaming homosexuals.)

Why is the "knowledge" of this man "imperative"? What hidden secrets does he possess?
[/quote]

So now sexual orientation has a negative effect on one's ability to think critically? In that case I'd say that, because there are so many raving heterosexual, alpha-male, Raving Right Wingers, heterosexuality apparently undoes one's ability to think critically as well.

Vidal is not a "leftist." Try reading some of his political essays. You obviously have not yet done so, because you call him a "leftist." His views on Christianity are irrelevant here.

[quote]
(And what has George W. Bush gained personally by blowing up the WTC according to you? How has it enriched him?)[/quote]

If you think that pole numbers are the major concern of men like Bush, then it would be very difficult to explain what his motives would be, and the benefits for doing so.

[quote]
Besides, we all know the interdimensional space lizards are behind all this with their Reptilian Agenda.
Read [url="http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/"]David Ickes[/url]. His knowledge is imperative.
[/quote]

Ad hominem. You have no verification that I take this guy seriously. Whom I've never heard of until just now reading your post. Believing that conspiracy theories can be dismissed by referring to absurdities like "reptillians" is just intellectually dishonest!

[quote]
(And btw, Winchester is a professional fireman. He knows what he's talking about.)
[/quote]

Awesome.

[Winchester]

[quote]Why are there over NINE separate explosions that can be heard echoing all the way over to Hoboken while the towers are burning?
[/quote]

If these explosions occured in the basement, the command crews located in the ground floor lobby would have evacuated. They did not. Acoustics such as they are, and panic (try explaining to a homeowner you took four minutes to respond when he thinks it was fifteen) being what it is, I will rely on those who reacted as they react at countless emergencies.


[quote]Why after the first of these explosions is huge cloud of smoke seen rising from the base of the towers on the streets of lower Manhatten?
[/quote]

Again, tactics were not altered. If indeed this happened on september 11 instead of film from the previous attack, I should point out jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts.

[quote]How do 12 foot high floors collapse on each other at a rate of 10 floors per SECOND?

How does a fire near the top of these buildings break up the core support system on ALL FLOORS?
[/quote]
You must not have read the article. You must not understand the nature of collapse, the forces incvolved, the weight of the upper 30+ stories, etcetera.
The upper floors broke apart the bottom floors. That's the very nature of the collapse. I'll watch the video, but you need to read Vincent Dunn.
How many non-conspiracy professionally taught building construction and collapse classes have you attended? I've done more than my share of conspiracy research--too many are fond of making up what they don't know.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='990917' date='May 26 2006, 07:42 AM']
If these explosions occured in the basement, the command crews located in the ground floor lobby would have evacuated. They did not. Acoustics such as they are, and panic (try explaining to a homeowner you took four minutes to respond when he thinks it was fifteen) being what it is, I will rely on those who reacted as they react at countless emergencies.

Again, tactics were not altered. If indeed this happened on september 11 instead of film from the previous attack, I should point out jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts.[/quote]

Jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts over and over again? I thought that was supposed to have happened when the planes hit... once.

There were a lot of loud noises, and a lot of activity going on, and they were trying to plan, re-plan and execute a rescue operation on the ground level of a massive building. And I seriously don't think they would have fled the scene without orders to do so, which, when they were given after the first tower came down, were obeyed.

[quote]
You must not have read the article. You must not understand the nature of collapse, the forces incvolved, the weight of the upper 30+ stories, etcetera.[/quote]

No, but I will. I've been doing an un-biased review of material for both conspiracy theories: the one given to us by our government and the one given by the so-called "conspiracy theorists." Why can't the 911 Commission be labeled "a crowd of conspiracy theorists?"

BTW: I often wonder why conspiracy theories are labeled "kooky" until the government says otherwise; and why the average citizen can't label the government's stories "kooky" without being labeled "kooky."

[quote]
The upper floors broke apart the bottom floors. That's the very nature of the collapse. I'll watch the video, but you need to read Vincent Dunn.[/quote]

Yeah, I KNOW THAT EXPLANATION. It hasn't been proven beyond doubt. Primarily because the government ordered the complete and immediate removal of the very thing that could have confirmed it beyond doubt: the pile of wreckage.

But I'll read Dunn's stuff of course.

[quote]
How many non-conspiracy professionally taught building construction and collapse classes have you attended?[/quote]

None. I'm just asking questions like the other "kooks." No one's giving good answers. And YES, there are answers I WOULD accept as good. Don't pay too much attention to Wikipedia's description of "conspiracism." It makes the same mistake that people make in the "liberal vs. conservative" debate: a label doesn't fully describe a person. It never can.

[quote]
I've done more than my share of conspiracy research--too many are fond of making up what they don't know.
[/quote]

Okay.... I'm aware of that. Why do you naturally assume that I'm unwilling to consider everything just because I'm challenging the "OFFICIAL STORY?"

-------

Oh watch out everybody!! Here comes

THE ONE!

THE ONLY!

THE OFFICIAL STORY!

BOW DOWN IN AWE BEFORE THE THROWN OF THE GLORIOUS EXPERTS!

Don't worry! They work for the highly trustworthy Imperial Federal Government of the United States! They only desire to inform you of the BEST truth that can possibly be considered!

(pardon my sarcasm)

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Winchester' post='990782' date='May 25 2006, 10:18 PM']
Thick black smoke violently moving out of the building does indicate a significant fire, so you'd need the highest flow practical from your handlines. You'd also want horizontal or vertical ventilation as soon as possible.[/quote]
What if it were white or gray smoke violently moving out of the building? Seriously, seeking your prof opinion there. I hear so many cite the black smoke in WTC as a sure indication of a low temp, dying fire that did not have the capacity to weaken steel. [And I'd go vertical first to aid entry, unless there were a reason not to - but my experience is mainly wildfire, with some rural protection during the off-season along side "surround & drown" volunteer outfits , all during college days 10 years ago. I don't remember everything, and never knew all that much about urban stuff with more than three floors.]

[quote name='Winchester' post='990782' date='May 25 2006, 10:18 PM']
I think we can hijack this thread into a fire tactics discussion, don't you?
[/quote]
While that would be fun for me, I think it would amount to me coughing up rust and dust from my past and you correcting everything. I think I'll spare you the typing exercise and everyone else the anguish.

[Winchester]

[quote]Jet fuel poured down several elevator shafts over and over again? I thought that was supposed to have happened when the planes hit... once.
[/quote]

Explosions caused by heat and fire take time. Successive explosions would not have been out of the ordinary. About four years ago, I was at a fire at a composites plant. The product was stored in barrels, and the warehouse was heavily involved. Barrels exposed to fire gave at differing times--and the accompanying fire and noise was more or less impressive depending, but the detonations took place over a period of hours, each one separately.

Again, I seriously doubt these explosions occured.

[quote]There were a lot of loud noises, and a lot of activity going on, and they were trying to plan, re-plan and execute a rescue operation on the ground level of a massive building. And I seriously don't think they would have fled the scene without orders to do so, which, when they were given after the first tower came down, were obeyed[/quote]

It was the command staff. They give the orders. And yes, when you hear a boom, your officers and you can and will evacuate prior to orders. That's why fire companies have officers in them--to give orders based on tactical and task level knowledge.

Most of the banging you hear on the videos are bodies striking the ground. They're loud when they hit with that much momentum.

[quote]Yeah, I KNOW THAT EXPLANATION. It hasn't been proven beyond doubt. Primarily because the government ordered the complete and immediate removal of the very thing that could have confirmed it beyond doubt: the pile of wreckage.
[/quote]
The wreckage was removed because it was a rescue/recovery operation. Mostly recovery. Computer models are advanced enough to recreate the collapse.

[quote]None. I'm just asking questions like the other "kooks." No one's giving good answers. And YES, there are answers I WOULD accept as good. Don't pay too much attention to Wikipedia's description of "conspiracism." It makes the same mistake that people make in the "liberal vs. conservative" debate: a label doesn't fully describe a person. It never can.
[/quote]

Excuse me? I've given very good answers, and not based upon the 9-11 report. Nor were the two firefighter's I've cited giving reports from the 9-11 report. They're speaking from experience--one was a commander at the incident!

[quote]Okay.... I'm aware of that. Why do you naturally assume that I'm unwilling to consider everything just because I'm challenging the "OFFICIAL STORY?"
[/quote]

Actually, you are closer in your belief in the structural strength of the WTC to the "official story" than I am. Your beliefs strengthen the position of modern architecture, which is not built with the same safety factors as before. Cheaper materials, tighter tolerances. Like a competition pistol: it can't handle combat, but it's damnably accurate.

[quote]BOW DOWN IN AWE BEFORE THE THROWN OF THE GLORIOUS EXPERTS!

Don't worry! They work for the highly trustworthy Imperial Federal Government of the United States! They only desire to inform you of the BEST truth that can possibly be considered!
[/quote]

I believe I've been quite civil to you. I have been honest, and I have not vomited up information gained from a few minutes or even hours perusal of the internet. I have used my eight years of experience (not much, I'll grant you) in responding. I have quoted experts--as I believe you have claimed to do as well. Neither of my cited sources are federal employees. Both are New York firemen, both are chief officers.

FYI: I firmly believe in conspiracies. I find it within the realm of possibility that Roos overlooked intelligence to permit the attack on Pearl Harbor, that MLK and MAlcolm X were assassinated by the Nation of Islam or perhaps the government, and the Oswald may not have acted alone.

I merely reject the notion of secondary devices planted at the WTC as ridiculous because of my professional knowledge, which is easily accesible to anyone bothering to do the research.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Winchester' post='989567' date='May 24 2006, 12:46 PM']February 1991 at One Meridian Plaza, a serious fire that killed three [s]firfighters[/s], a structural engineer warned there was a [s]pissiiblity[/s] of collapse. (11 hour fire) The building did not collapse, but it was torn down due to the damage inflicted. It was a collapse hazard. Other buildings of more heavy weight construction have been exposed to similar stresses and not needed demolition.[/quote]
[color="red"][b]firefighters[/b][/color]

[color="red"][b]possibility[/b][/color]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='990882' date='May 26 2006, 06:38 AM']
So now sexual orientation has a negative effect on one's ability to think critically? In that case I'd say that, because there are so many raving heterosexual, alpha-male, Raving Right Wingers, heterosexuality apparently undoes one's ability to think critically as well.

Vidal is not a "leftist." Try reading some of his political essays. You obviously have not yet done so, because you call him a "leftist." His views on Christianity are irrelevant here.[/quote]
My point is that Gore Vidal can hardly be considered a rational and unbiased source. He is an anti-religious liberal, and has long fought against conservatives, calling them "crypto-Nazis." He is a man with an agenda, and appears to thrive on outrageousness and controversy, and such a person should not be considered a reliable authority in this matter.
You have given no reason why Vidal's opinion should be trusted over anyone else's on this matter. Is he privy to something that others are not regarding 9-11?

[quote]If you think that pole numbers are the major concern of men like Bush, then it would be very difficult to explain what his motives would be, and the benefits for doing so.[/quote]
Why should they not be? Bush is a politician afterall. If his popularity continues to sink, his political opponents will likely be in power, and Bush will have accomplished nothing. You have yet to explain what Bush gained from all this.

[quote]Ad hominem. You have no verification that I take this guy seriously. Whom I've never heard of until just now reading your post. Believing that conspiracy theories can be dismissed by referring to absurdities like "reptillians" is just intellectually dishonest!
[/quote]
That was a joke, dude! I never claimed you take him seriously. My point was simply that one can find people who claim all kinds of crazy stuff.

Winchester and others have given good answers about the Towers.

Get off the internet, get away from the computer, get some fresh air, find a hobby, take up a sport. Forget about this conspiracy theory craziness.

[Era Might]

George Bush doesn't like black people.

[Winchester]

Lil Red.

you're not helping.

and that's my schtick.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Socrates' post='991273' date='May 26 2006, 07:20 PM']
My point is that Gore Vidal can hardly be considered a rational and unbiased source. He is an anti-religious liberal, and has long fought against conservatives, calling them "crypto-Nazis." He is a man with an agenda, and appears to thrive on outrageousness and controversy, and such a person should not be considered a reliable authority in this matter.[/quote]

I agree, such a person shouldn't. I don't agree that Vidal is a controversialist. Ann Coulter and Madonna do that kind of thing better than anyone. Vidal is an intellectual with a point of view. And he's very up front and open about his point of view. But the unique thing is how well he can articulate his point of view. It's easy to understand. He doesn't beat around the bush, unlike many who try to deceptively coerce their readers into believing something about their position that isn't true to increase their readership. How many people read Vidal? Not many I assure you. He doesn't pander enough.

Who should be considered a reliable authority in this matter? A person who has a bias for the mundane and unimportant details? A right wing-bias? A left-wing bias? Or a bias for the utterly grand and totally unblemished history of our government's moral integrity? I'm sorry, I refuse to allow myself the comfort of blind trustfulness of those who have power over me and my fellow Americans. They haven't given me a good reason to trust them. They've given plenty of reasons to distrust them (unless you're a biased conservative republican or a biased liberal democrat).

[quote]
You have given no reason why Vidal's opinion should be trusted over anyone else's on this matter. Is he privy to something that others are not regarding 9-11?[/quote]

The answer to that question is "no" in one way (information), and yes in another way (opinion). Vidal's opinion about 911 is not tainted by the obvious bias coming from our government and most of the US news and opinion outlets. The mainstream likes to view that event as an act of war against this country necessitating the mobilization of US war machine worldwide. Vidal doesn't view it that way. And it's not because he's a leftist (he isn't anyway). He IS a fan of a non-global US sphere of influence.

Mark my words Socrates, the so-called "War on Terror" is going to result in a global hatred for Islam itself (if this is not already the case). If we don't withdraw ALL of our "coercive forces" BACK to the US mainland, we are going to be the most despised people on the face of the planet. This "war on terror" is going to cause more problems than it will solve. The UN is supposed to police the world, not US.

His opinion should be considered because he is knowledgeable and is a good writer. But the most important reason his opinion should be considered is that people from both the right AND the left would vehemently disagree with him on some issues. In this sense (and I say only in THIS sense) he is similar to Pope John Paul II. If you are a right-wing conservative or a left-wing liberal, you would find that he doesn't fully support all of your intellectual positions. Since that quality is largely missing from public debate these days, I find it refreshing to have found someone who is intellectually capable of challenging that status quo.

How many of Gore Vidal's political essays have you actually read Socrates? [i]Dreaming War[/i] would be a good start. It contains a collection of them.

[quote]Why should they not be? Bush is a politician afterall. If his popularity continues to sink, his political opponents will likely be in power, and Bush will have accomplished nothing. You have yet to explain what Bush gained from all this.[/quote]

Look man, if you haven't seen the truth, ON YOUR OWN, about American Presidential administrations yet, then you're unlikely to take me seriously when I tell you what it is. But I will anyway. They are controlled by interest groups, some of whom are very wealthy, very powerful, transnational corporate leaders. It is those very wealthy, very powerful folks that men like Bush are most interested in helping. But what you have to come to realize is that an American president can only help these guys covertly, because he's supposed to be representing OUR interests only.

So they give us nice, patriotic stories about defending freedom in the world, while selling the navy's largest deep water port on the west coast to the People's Republic of China (far from a defender of freedom itself). Look it up. But they don't care what an extremely wealthy nation like CHina does to its people, because WEALTHY nations (Lucifer worshipping or otherwise) are US business partners.

Believe me, Bush won't be hurting for money when he finally leaves the White House, because his foreign policy has been primarily about making the Middle-East secure for transnational business. He and his friends will be loaded. And since most of the DOD leadership is behind this kind of thing 100% no investigation will ever touch our illustriously crooked, traitorous politicians.

They use their power to ensure each-other's continued financial security in the global market.

[quote]That was a joke, dude! I never claimed you take him seriously. My point was simply that one can find people who claim all kinds of crazy stuff.[/quote]

Ok fine. But in a debate (especially on a forum) that kind of thing sounds ad hominem. Whenever a conspiracy theory is challenged by those who cannot condescend to even SLIGHTLY consider its factuality, they usually bring up references to some of the 100% unfounded ideas which can be found among the so-called "conspiracy crowd." I was just reacting based on past experiences.

[quote]Winchester and others have given good answers about the Towers.[/quote]

Yes, which I've read and am fully open to. But the material they've presented remains speculation without a thorough investigation into the ACTUAL events of that day. Our trustworthy government did no such thing and everybody who is sane agrees. One NY firefighters journal called it "a half-baked farce."

[quote]Get off the internet, get away from the computer, get some fresh air, find a hobby, take up a sport.
[/quote]

That's good advice in a way. I've been trying to find other things to do. But it's not like all I ever do is surf the web looking for stuff like this. I honestly find it unsettling that, merely because I decide to lead several threads on these kinds of topics, you assume I'm some kind of dolt. I admit I don't do many of the things that most people find interesting, but that's not because I choose to read about the things I DO find interesting.

If I could find the time to drive a couple of miles away from the city I would get back into astronomy, but I haven't found the time yet.

I appreciate your concern for my psychological well-being. But "current events" is an interest of mine. It has been for many years. Why should I limit my information sources to those which are "socially acceptable" and "socially correct?" What's wrong with assuming you're not getting the whole story? And I don't just arbitrarilly, and with drooling mouth , take seriously whatever web site comes up first on Google's list, such as our demented brother in Christ here:

[url="http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/satanism_in_the_vatican.htm"](be warned, this is pretty off the wall)[/url]

[quote]Forget about this conspiracy theory craziness.[/quote]

You obviously have far too much faith in the idea that conspiracies, of the kind in question, are an impossibility in American life. Apparently this very naive belief has evolved into a social dogma.

Just call me a heretic then.

[Winchester]

[quote]One NY firefighters journal called it "a half-baked farce."

[/quote]

Which journal, which edition, what author? I'd like to read it myself.


[quote]without a thorough investigation into the ACTUAL events of that day. Our trustworthy government did no such thing and everybody who is sane agrees[/quote]

And yet we've had several training sessions come out of these non-investigations, a National Incident Management System in part developed on knowledge gained from 9-11 attacks.



You err in your extremism--language and willingness to accept certain explanations over others. The latter is evident from your writing. If you have not accepted and internalized the extreme, then take a month or so and refine your writing skills because this is the impression you've left.

Honestly, no one thinks the government is not, at least in part, for sale. All governments are to greater or lesser degrees.

[Winchester]

I searched the net, finding some very funny articles.

One guy complained that jet fuel burns at 873 degrees. I'd have to look it up, but he then goes on to state definitively that such a temperature could not have damaged the steel to the point of collapse because pf the temperatures required to make steel soften. He forgets that office furniture burns as well and that cieling temperatures are regularly enough in warehouses to cause the collapse of similarly constructed roofs. He's uninformed, but authoritative.


I found the article. It came from Fire Engineering. It's a reputable international magazine, not a ny firefighter journal, and it is being chopped up to suit the conspiracy theorists.

[quote]Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history[/quote]

Fire-induced. Hmm. Not really what prison planet is looking for right?

I saw more than one article saying a fire trade magazine had said that burning jet fuel was not enough to bring down the towers. The articles then went on to discuss their bomb theories. What's the actual quote?

[quote]The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
[/quote]

I left in the last part because it's no problem for me to show it. I'm honest. I have actual professional knowledge from the span of my career and personal experience. We know lightweight construction, as used in WTC, does not stand up to fire load. An investigation would prove it, and that proof would be useful in making laws about construction. This would be motivation enough to avoid an in depth investigation into the collapse. If it got out with scientific proof that office bulding furnishings could produce enough heat to contribute to a high rise collapse, then things would change--and no construction company wants that. They already find ways to avoid putting in standpipes and other fire safety features. Every time I read first hand sources, I find the quotes in conspiracy articles to be partial and misleading, and their theories about structures laughable, ignorant.

Stupid.

Insane.

I believe in conspiracies. I don't follow every uninformed nabob or quote the quotes of supposed quotes without doing a little research. If you are going to the primary sources (it took me all of two minutes) it isn't showing in what you're putting here.

This is the same experience I have with anti-Catholics. They are generally uninformed, they quote each other with incestuous abandon, and they have a lack of regard for whole truths.

I am insulted. Truly insulted.

[url="http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_display.cfm?article_id=131225"]Fire engineering article[/url]

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='993174' date='May 30 2006, 05:30 PM']
And yet we've had several training sessions come out of these non-investigations, a National Incident Management System in part developed on knowledge gained from 9-11 attacks.[/quote]

That fact, as well as the "construction style" explanation, doesn't prove that the unorthodox explanations are completely false. That report on construction technique to which you referred me (written by the fire chief) is a good explanation. It almost makes everything crystal clear. If it wasn't for the fact that the destruction of the buildings, as seen on video, doesn't fit the pancake collapse theory I would completely disregard my suspicions. But I can't, because what happens on film seem to fit the official explanations.


[quote]You err in your extremism--language and willingness to accept certain explanations over others. The latter is evident from your writing. If you have not accepted and internalized the extreme, then take a month or so and refine your writing skills because this is the impression you've left.[/quote]

Ok. I stand corrected in that regard. But, to defend myself a little, I profer this to you: without a certain willingness to reject as false the "socially acceptable," "politically correct" and "universally official," I don't believe I would be able to critically examine this at all. I refuse to believe that ALL of the "unorthodox" ideas about 911 are completely untenable. I considered that possibility once, and then realized, after watching videos and looking at photographs, that it was a intellectually dishonest attitude.

[quote]
Honestly, no one thinks the government is not, at least in part, for sale. All governments are to greater or lesser degrees.[/quote]

Thank you for aknowledging that. Most people who believe the largely accepted story of 911 accuse people like me of being anti-American. They only do that because they confuse our nation's government (and its associate policies) with the nation itself.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Winchester' post='993204' date='May 30 2006, 06:11 PM']
I searched the net, finding some very funny articles.

One guy complained that jet fuel burns at 873 degrees. I'd have to look it up, but he then goes on to state definitively that such a temperature could not have damaged the steel to the point of collapse because pf the temperatures required to make steel soften. He forgets that office furniture burns as well and that cieling temperatures are regularly enough in warehouses to cause the collapse of similarly constructed roofs. He's uninformed, but authoritative.[/quote]

Were the temperatures great enough to completely MELT steel do you think? Have YOU ever seen a furniture/office/combustible materials fire turn steel in to liquid?

That's what happened on 911 at the WTC. There's a video of molten steel pouring out of one of the holes. The clean up crew found pools of molten steel beneath the wreckage, in the basement. Read Prof. Steven E. Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

[quote]I found the article. It came from Fire Engineering. It's a reputable international magazine, not a ny firefighter journal, and it is being chopped up to suit the conspiracy theorists.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought it was a national journal at first. I should have checked that. It probably IS being chopped up, but I would argue that fact is slightly unimportant given that very little has been proven definitively about the destruction of those buildings other than the fact that they were destroyed.

[quote]Fire-induced. Hmm. Not really what prison planet is looking for right?[/quote]

No. But what does it matter what the writer ASSUMES about the event? His conclusion is that the investigation was conducted in an absurd fashion. I would argue that was the government's intent. The writer seems to think the government is just incompetent (a possibility), but most likely they are too often intentionally incompetent for reasons of their own which they do not choose to share...

[quote]I saw more than one article saying a fire trade magazine had said that burning jet fuel was not enough to bring down the towers. The articles then went on to discuss their bomb theories.

What's the actual quote?[/quote]

I'm as curious as you are. More than likely the original source contains agreements with the official story. Such things shouldn't worry a conspiracy theorist, but they often do.

[quote]I left in the last part because it's no problem for me to show it. I'm honest. I have actual professional knowledge from the span of my career and personal experience. We know lightweight construction, as used in WTC, does not stand up to fire load. An investigation would prove it, and that proof would be useful in making laws about construction. This would be motivation enough to avoid an in depth investigation into the collapse. If it got out with scientific proof that office bulding furnishings could produce enough heat to contribute to a high rise collapse, then things would change--and no construction company wants that. They already find ways to avoid putting in standpipes and other fire safety features. Every time I read first hand sources, I find the quotes in conspiracy articles to be partial and misleading, and their theories about structures laughable, ignorant.

Stupid.

Insane.[/quote]

Ok. That's a reasonable conclusion and observation. I think such experiments have already been done though and the results didn't help the official story... I'll have to check that.

[quote]I believe in conspiracies. I don't follow every uninformed nabob or quote the quotes of supposed quotes without doing a little research. If you are going to the primary sources (it took me all of two minutes) it isn't showing in what you're putting here.[/quote]

Ok.

[quote]This is the same experience I have with anti-Catholics. They are generally uninformed, they quote each other with incestuous abandon, and they have a lack of regard for whole truths.

I am insulted. Truly insulted.[/quote]

You're attacking my character without serious justification for doing so. All I did was bring this up. I'm sorry if I let my feelings get into this. You're right that I shouldn't have. But to accuse me of having little or no regard for whole truths lacks something to be desired on your part. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Maybe there are those out there who are. But all I've seen is a bunch of people whove noticed SEVERAL inconsistencies with the official story and are bothered by them.

I hope you don't think that is wrong!

Most people don't ask questions because they don't care. They just swallow what comes at them on TV and from their government as though there has never been a greater source of truth and honesty. It is easier for the powerful to lie and get away with it then it is for them to tell the truth and actually help people. Most of the time the majority of human beings can be completely fooled about what is actually taking place in the world.

If that isn't true, how did Hitler ever become so powerful? Nearly all of his public addresses contained fabrication, dishonesty, deception, manipulation and coercion, all based on theories of group psychology. This is historical fact. And I am convinced we're having the wool pulled over eyes again for purposes chillingly similar to Hitler's.

BTW, did you see that video to which I linked?

Edited May 31, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Winchester]

[quote]If it wasn't for the fact that the destruction of the buildings, as seen on video, doesn't fit the pancake collapse theory I would completely disregard my suspicions. [/quote]

How does it not fit a pancake collapse? Would that it did not, I would feel a lot safer at work.


[quote]
Were the temperatures great enough to completely MELT steel do you think? Have YOU ever seen a furniture/office/combustible materials fire turn steel in to liquid?
[/quote]

No, but I have seen them precipitate collapse in steel buildings, and I've read the training material on avoding being caught in those collapses.

[quote]That's what happened on 911 at the WTC. There's a video of molten steel pouring out of one of the holes. The clean up crew found pools of molten steel beneath the wreckage, in the basement. Read Prof. Steven E. Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
[/quote]

Forgive my doubt, having seen so much footage. Haven't heard of any of this, and I would think it would have been mentioned. I'll try to look for Jones's paper.


[quote]You're attacking my character without serious justification for doing so. [/quote]

I'm sorry, I meant to attack the character of your sources. You're merely a person looking for truth being victimized by imbeciles and cads. A true conspiracy theorist is skeptical of all explanations and realizes that counterintelligence includes putting out inanr theories intentionally.


[/quote]But all I've seen is a bunch of people whove noticed SEVERAL inconsistencies with the official story and are bothered by them[quote]

That's because the official story is designed to protect (in part) shoddy building practices.


I am afraid that my attempt to watch the video was unsuccesful. Perhaps it's my broken wing computer.