9-11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&hl=en An interesting video I found on Google.

I, for one, am not surprised Ford. Not with all the other research we've been doing over the past few months.

I found it interesting it opened with \"I am a conservative republican.\" The proof for me was those beams cut at a 45 degree angle, a sure sign of shape charges. <-- Has some demolition experience.

9/11 conspiracies are all false, sorry Ford. I'm a skeptic, but there is no way that it could have been anything than what it actually was.

I am glad you told the truth about your thoughts on 9-11, but I am a little surprised after all the information I shared with you at the corporation thread that you are not convinced. Don't take my word for it, check it ort for yourself. And don't just read the debunking sites, which will tell lies about what the 911 truth movement is saying and then debunk their own lies, look at the science behind the way the towers fell, check out the Norad standdown, and read about Bush's opposition to creating a 9-11 comission and then make your won conclusions.

I think SouthPark had it partially right.

I still support the Corporation fully, but there will be times that my views are not 100% in line with the norm of the Corp.

Hey Ford, there was an excellent article in Skeptic magazine about the towers falling. If you can't find it online anywhere, I can gladly send you a copy. I too, was once a 9-11 conspiracy theorist. But I think most of it just falls into the same Kenny conspiracy, God conspiracy, etc., where people are hardwired to make sense of senselessness by any means and explanations necessary.

Thanks for posting MG. When I first started this thread, I was mad as hell at the conspiracy, and I wanted everyone to know about it. Now I am havng some second thoughts, as this is pretty much a happy and fun site, a place for escape. However, I am intrigued that you were once a theorist but now you doubt yourself. You are one of the most intellegent people I have met online and I am interested in hearing your views. You are a teacher, and that would also make you a scientist. You know the laws of physics, that open air fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel, and that buildings could not possibly fall at freefall speed without a little help. The biggest problem I had with accepting that the official story is not true is the sheer magnitude and evil of it all. For me, I had to accept that it was a lie mostly due to the scientific evidence. The laws of science are unbreakable, and no amount of government or media saying otherwise can change that fact. To everyone, I was thinking of deep sixing this thread, but I would like to get everyone's thoughts on it first. I don't want drama and bad feelings to overtake our happy fun place here, but if you guys think it is ok, I will keep it up.

i never heard the clip of rudy googlianny (i know shut up) before this vid, saying the towers were about to fall.. thats a little disturbing.. truth told, all compiled into one piece, it makes me doubt the story the gov't gave us.

Ford, it wasn't thjat the steel MELTEd. It became Brittle with all the heat. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F. Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception.

Ford, don't axe this thread, I think it could lead to some great conversations and ideas not only about 9-11 but American thought and culture. One of the first things I try to teach my students (and I know I fail at least 30% of time) is to take in as much information as possible before conforming to ideological notions. I sincerely believe that the social conscious can only be raised if we can have an open discussion of anything and everything "defined" by our culture as controversial (e.g. - god, religion, conspiracies, government, capitalism, hell, pretty much everything) without the ideological "rank and file" condemning open minds and rational discourse. It seems too often these days when someone even suggests a different possibility about _________, someones feathers get prickled and they resort to attacks based on the information that has been fed to them by the media, the government, or political pundits on the news outlets or radio. In other words, ideologues who just spit out other people's "facts," coming off as simply empty vessels filled with other people's thoughts. In other words, I feel that too many people have lost the skill to question everything. To illustrate this, I give a brief lecture on why I feel Abraham Lincoln was the grea-*test*-('") American president and why, based on today's political climate, there will never be another. The reason is simple: Lincoln appointed his rivals to his cabinet (as Doris Kearns Goodwin illustrates excellently in "Team of Rivals"), people who wanted to get the Republican nomination, democrats who disagreed with his strategy, etc. The point is: Lincoln didn't appoint people who would simply agree with everything he said and feed him information that he wanted to hear. He did this to get a smart, educated, opinion from all sides of the subject to make an informed opinion. Something that has been lost from politics since Lincoln was assassinated. Holy shit, I'm getting long-winded. Anyway, I'm pulling an all-nighter finishing a thesis for my graduate program on how food (or lack thereof) was a key factor in the ultimate horrific conclusion to Jonestown. So, Ford, I will get that 9/11 info up once my schedule clears up a bit. So don't "deep six" the thread. Let's question everything.

That's the official story Jim. The problem is, there was molten steel found at the site months after the attacks. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/050407Prime.htm http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html ANd the pancaking theory is not credible. While it makes sense on the surface, the top levels of the building would have met resistance on the way down. It should have taken about two minutes to fall, not 12 seconds. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5104218733691651391&q=pancaking+theory&hl=en Understanding Newton's laws of gravity, its just not possible. Watch this and pay special attention to the example of two bowling balls, one dropped through the air and the other dropped through 110 panes of glass. the one dropped through the glass would natually take longer to fall. This is basic 9th grade science.

Cru, thanks for the backup. If you think the Googliany story was strange, check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0 MG, I look forward to rreading your comments.