# Poll for The Atheists



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job? (Only Atheists please)

If baffles me how people can debate God's existence all day, yet believe unquestioningly the official 9/11 story, when there is so much evidence against it. I don't want this to turn into a debate about God or 9/11; I'm just curious how many Atheist members here believe or don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's all.

Kthxbye


----------



## Dempsey (Jun 27, 2009)

Maybe explain what this has to do with atheism first?


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

Dempsey said:


> *Maybe explain what this has to do with atheism first?*


Exactly!


----------



## ilikebooks (Nov 26, 2008)

I would have to leave this at a "don't know".

The only "evidence" I've seen that 9/11 was an inside job was from conspiracy theory sources, which are very hard to take seriously. Of course, if it was an inside job, it's the exact type of thing a reputable source (i.e., government-published articles) would lie about.

That being said, I highly doubt that it was an inside job, but I still acknowledge the possibility of it. Would you mind posting some of the evidence you're talking about, though? I'm kind of interested in seeing where it's coming from.


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

Dempsey said:


> Maybe explain what this has to do with atheism first?


How important "proof" really is.

Books, do some research into John O'Neill, and read this: 
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I think you'll find it interesting.

and edit: Just as I expected. lol


----------



## Dempsey (Jun 27, 2009)

You're trying to use this as an example of how faith works? Noooooo......


----------



## AstronautsGrapes (Sep 29, 2009)

do i think the bush admin. handled 911 poorly & could have prevented it? yes.
do i think the bush admin masterminded 911? no.


----------



## Fitzer (Feb 13, 2010)

No I don't believe it was an inside job. There is not enough evidence to support that claim. However, I do think its a good idea to always question things like that.


----------



## steelmyhead (May 31, 2009)

I read the article. Energetic red grey chips found in dust recovered from WTC collapse. It doesn't show anything other than that, though. Also, I am not an atheist, and I also do not believe in God, nor do I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, nor do I believe in adhering to a proper sentence structure.


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

I'm not an atheist, and I don't know if this supports the 9/11 conspiracy theory or not, but on the day the World Trade center was bombed, I was aware that it had been bombed before (strangely enough) so it came as a half-shock, half-"this has happened once before." I think it made it all too apparent that terrorists hated America for everything. Perhaps Bush had knowledge of something, I don't know.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Conspiracy theorism (much like paranormalism) is a type of religion. Like any religion, they're constantly manufacturing "evidence" which in their view is blindingly obvious, but which is laughable to unbiased observers whose ability to reason hasn't been impaired by the "it makes me feel superior and special to believe this so I'm going to believe it" mentality. I believe some atheists become conspiracy theorists because they have religious urges and the need to feel like they're in a special enlightened group of chosen ones.

One of the first things you realize if you ever take a philosophy class is that anything can be doubted. Nobody can prove this universe isn't a simulation in a child's bedroom in a meta-universe, and if you want to you can make all sorts of things into "evidence" for it being one. The problem with how conspiracy theorists think is that they conflate the ability to be skeptical of the "official story" (moon landing, 9/11, etc) with evidence for an alternative story. They never apply skepticism to the view they support, only to the view they oppose. This is the same way religious people tend to be very good at being skeptical of other religions and atheism, but never put their own beliefs through more than a token analysis.

Incidentally, I'd love to hear why the CIA or whoever selected to attack the pentagon, where they themselves work, instead of tons of other targets that would give all the same benefits. Didn't like their coworkers in that part of the building? :lol

Of course, the theory truthers often push with their "evidence" -- that the buildings were blown up with explosives and the planes were incidental -- is utterly absurd when you take a few seconds to consider how the government _would_ go about faking a terrorist attack. Any sane government would simply blow up the building with explosives, or simply ram a plane into the buildings -- either would've accomplished exactly the same political results as 9/11 did, without the absurd complication of trying to coordinate everything with perfect timing and involve lots of unnecessary extra conspirators and leave evidence of lies for absolutely no benefit.

Also, if we granted the absurdity of there being both explosives and planes involved, that doesn't even change the odds of who was responsible -- it's just as reasonable to imagine al-quaeda coordinating the two as the government doing it. After all, terrorists attacked the WTC with explosives back in the 90s.

So what you have is clearly mistaken evidence for something that doesn't make any sense, but even if it did make sense and were valid evidence for the claim of the official story being wrong, still wouldn't be any evidence at all for the conclusion the truthers are trying to extrapolate from it.


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

Hoth said:


> Conspiracy theorism (much like paranormalism) is a type of religion. Like any religion, they're constantly manufacturing "evidence" which in their view is blindingly obvious, but which is laughable to unbiased observers whose ability to reason hasn't been impaired by the "it makes me feel superior and special to believe this so I'm going to believe it" mentality. *I believe some atheists become conspiracy theorists because they have religious urges and the need to feel like they're in a special enlightened group of chosen ones.*
> 
> One of the first things you realize if you ever take a philosophy class is that anything can be doubted. Nobody can prove this universe isn't a simulation in a child's bedroom in a meta-universe, and if you want to you can make all sorts of things into "evidence" for it being one. The problem with how conspiracy theorists think is that they conflate the ability to be skeptical of the "official story" (moon landing, 9/11, etc) with evidence for an alternative story. They never apply skepticism to the view they support, only to the view they oppose. This is the same way religious people tend to be very good at being skeptical of other religions and atheism, but never put their own beliefs through more than a token analysis.
> 
> Incidentally, I'd love to hear why the CIA or whoever selected to attack the pentagon, where they themselves work, instead of tons of other targets that would give all the same benefits. Didn't like their coworkers in that part of the building? :lol


Excellent post!


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

steelmyhead said:


> I read the article. Energetic red grey chips found in dust recovered from WTC collapse. It doesn't show anything other than that, though. Also, I am not an atheist, and I also do not believe in God, nor do I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, nor do I believe in adhering to a proper sentence structure.


That dust just so happens to be Nano-thermite, sir. It wasn't an "article" it's a scientific paper, from a peer-reviewed journal.

The reason I'm asking Atheists, is because they seem to be so adamant with the idea of lack of proof when it comes to God. So I was curious how many of these people (who are so interested in needing proof), can accept what we were initially told about 9/11, when the evidence says differently. It fascinates me how the supposedly "critical thinking" mind can be so gullible and give into such an erroneous explanation. And at the same time telling other people their beliefs are wrong.

Building 7; a 47 foot tall, steel reinforced building fell for 2.5 seconds at freefall speed. You'd have to believe in "magick" to believe fire caused that. Oh wait, Atheists don't believe in that. =O Yet I doubt after having read that, they still will continue to to believe the OS.

It's just a thought that came to my mind, and I was curious. I have OCD with logic and reason. lol



> Conspiracy theorism (much like paranormalism) is a type of religion. Like any religion, they're constantly manufacturing "evidence" which in their view is blindingly obvious, but which is laughable to unbiased observers whose ability to reason hasn't been impaired by the "it makes me feel superior and special to believe this so I'm going to believe it" mentality. I believe some atheists become conspiracy theorists because they have religious urges and the need to feel like they're in a special enlightened group of chosen ones.


This isn't a conspiracy theory. Did you researchJohn O'Niell and read that paper? Also, I went from being a defender of the OS, to not knowing what happened and just stuck with that, to 9/11 Truther.



> You're trying to use this as an example of how faith works? Noooooo......


No, not really; how exclusionism and hypocrisy work.


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

I'm sorry but any one who believes it was an inside job should seriously take a reality check. :mum
I watched a documentary on the twin towers and how they were constructed and why they collapsed. Maybe you should check that out. There was a weakness in the main frame of the buildings. Sheeshh!


----------



## Mc Borg (Jan 4, 2008)

D11 said:


> I'm sorry but any one who believes it was an inside job should seriously take a reality check. :mum
> I watched a documentary on the twin towers and how they were constructed and why they collapsed. Maybe you should check that out. There was a weakness in the main frame of the buildings. Sheeshh!


Why? Because our government values human life so much, right? Are you aware of the Iraq War death-toll? It far outweighs how many people died on 9/11.

And trust me, I'm familiar with the official story.


----------



## steelmyhead (May 31, 2009)

Mc Borg said:


> That dust just so happens to be Nano-thermite, sir. It wasn't an "article" it's a scientific paper, from a peer-reviewed journal.


I'm not doubting the accuracy and thoroughness of the testing of the chips. I was saying that they tested the chips, and found that it was similar in behavior and composition to nano-thermite. I don't see that as being evidence to there being a conspiracy.


----------



## SilentWitness (Dec 27, 2009)

Mc Borg said:


> Why? Because our government values human life so much, right? Are you aware of the Iraq War death-toll? It far outweighs how many people died on 9/11.
> 
> *And trust me, I'm familiar with the official story.*


*You KNOW that makes no sense at all! Urghh!*

Do you know anything about the building industry? Do you know about the stairwells in the centre, this being its main defect(not really a defect) but a contributing factor to its collapse?


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

i'm definitely an atheist, but _jesus christ_.


----------



## mixolydian (May 23, 2009)

this is probably the most retarded thing I've ever read on this forum and that is saying something


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

:sus


----------



## Ambivert (Jan 16, 2010)

I knew it was a good idea for me to steer clear of this thread ^.^


----------



## imt (Sep 22, 2008)

The importance of empirical evidence is not equivalent to certainty in the Atheism community, that 911 was an inside job. That's a big stretch. I still don't see how Atheism has a role in this. Besides, the evidence for those claims are difficult to prove valid, outside of anecdotal accounts. So they're worthless. Do I trust the government? No. Did 911 seem fishy? Of course it did. It seems many things involving the previous administration appeared to be shady. I'm just saying.


----------



## VIncymon (Apr 16, 2009)

We just lost a thread in the voting booth about "sexism" i wonder how long it willl take us to get this one locked too.


----------



## Squirrelevant (Jul 27, 2008)

Sometimes, all you can do is laugh.


----------



## Deathinmusic (Jun 5, 2009)

Conspiracy theories are dumb, and the 9/11 truth movement qualifies as one. Sorry.


----------



## Erizal (Apr 20, 2010)

I've yet to see any compelling evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Personally I think that the US government could of done more to stop it but I don't think they planned it.

As for the existence of God, well there is mountains of scientific evidence to prove that the universe could of been created without some kind of 'divine intervention', and that life can evolve from nothing. But where is the proof about the existence of God? Faith is not a fact.

When you talk about believing unquestioningly, isn't that what religion does all the time? Science has so much evidence against it yet millions of people still believe in it. That, is what baffles me.

I don't like to discredit people's beliefs, but please... don't try and discredit mine.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

I think I may be the most openly militant Atheist on SAS.

I have no idea what 9/11 has to do with religion, other than Pat Robertson or some other goof ball probably said it happened due to America's "immorality". Fred Phelps probably thinks gays working in the twin towers attacked jumbo jets like a magnet.

I can't think of any conspiracy theory that I've ever believed in.

I guess you could call 9/11 an "inside job" depending on how you define that term. While I don't believe for a second that Americans had any direct link to 9/11, I very strongly believe it ultimately was our misguided interventionist foreign policy that made our nation a target. First, we greatly anger radical Muslim by our support of Israel -- their ultimate enemy -- and our military presence in their holy land and then we wonder why they're upset with us.

We do to other nations what we'd never allow them to do to us. If another nation dared to put military troops on American soil they'd be gone real fast -- either fleeing or dead.


----------



## caflme (Jun 7, 2009)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

I found this interesting when I read it several years ago.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

I'm amazed people think our government is capable enough to pull that off.

I think they were aware of threats made, just like in Pearl Harbor. But no, no planning on their part.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

SilentLoner said:


> I'm amazed people think our government is capable enough to pull that off.
> 
> *I think they were aware of threats made*, just like in Pearl Harbor. But no, no planning on their part.


The idea that commercial jets could be used a guided missiles was indeed considered and very quickly dismissed as so exceptionally unlikely it would never happen.

With the 20/20 clarity of hindsight we can all see the risk should have been taken seriously. Today a person -- especially from the Mid East and/or Muslim -- who enrolls in a flight school and is oddly interested in ONLY learning how to fly a 747 once it's already airborne with no desire to learn how to take off or land nor a desire to learn how to fly a much smaller private plane would clearly get immediate attention from Homeland Security.

I'm not aware if any threats being made regarding the use of commercial jets in suicide missions, though I'm not certain and if anyone can provide a link showing such threats I've be most interested. I believe the issue simply came up by someone brainstorming ideas of how terrorists might carry out an attack and they just happened to come up with the very kind of thing that happened on 9/11.

On 9/10/2001 and before such an idea could easily be dismissed as so far fetched as to not be worthy of further consideration. After all (as far as I know) nobody had ever done such a thing before and it's only natural to think that if it's never happened it's not going to.

The only prior case I can think of is Kamikaze pilots flying their fighter planes into American ships as a desperate last resorts when clearly losing WWII, but I can't think of anybody who ever tried this tactic outside the bounds of war nor with a jumbo jets nor on a civilian target prior to 9/11.


----------



## letitrock (Jan 10, 2009)

I voted "Don't Know", but I vaguely remember that whole thing about the administration, how they could've stopped 9/11 if they had paid attention to that inside tip/info they had beforehand, so if you look at it from that angle, than it _was_ an inside job..


----------



## jijiji (Feb 5, 2011)

Mc Borg said:


> Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job? (Only Atheists please)
> 
> If baffles me how people can debate God's existence all day, yet believe unquestioningly the official 9/11 story, when there is so much evidence against it. I don't want this to turn into a debate about God or 9/11; I'm just curious how many Atheist members here believe or don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, that's all.
> 
> Kthxbye


it's not baffling. the connection between the two is that atheism and acceptance of the 9/11 story are both pushed by our culture and media


----------



## Kustamogen (Dec 19, 2010)

haha its the american government.....FAR too stupid to do that kinda stuff. Its not like how it is in the movies folks lol


----------



## Berlusconi (Feb 1, 2011)

I'm honestly surprised that people can overlook this thread and think that it's so utterly ridiculous. There were so many things wrong with 9/11. I mean seriously, what makes people think that a plane crashing into a building will make it fall the way that it did? The heat from the burning jet fuel was not even enough to weaken the metal beams of the buildings. These buildings were designed to withstand such temperatures. Even if it did get hot enough the building would not collapse the way it did.

I've done a ridiculous amount of research into this, and I know that conspiracies sound ridiculous sometimes, but I do not trust our government one bit.

I honestly would say that it was a distraction to deal with the stock market issues. 

Also, I'm not sure why this is just for Atheists.



And if it helps make anyone feel better, I absolutely loathe the majority of the US Military. I hate the government, I can't stand the fat and ignorant people that populate this country, I hate the religion that corrupts it, and I hate the rich corporations that put so much pressure on the government. They do not care about the people. There are those that do, and I cherish all of them.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

So your guess is that some people in the government demolished some buildings using explosives, killing thousands of their own citizens, as a distraction for the stock market? And they also managed to keep everyones involvement a secret all these years. That sounds like one of the most elaborate and unnecessary ways to create a distraction ever conceived.

Edit: woah...copying-pasting from abiword really messes up the initial post...lol


----------



## Giraffe (Sep 7, 2010)

I suppose Noam Chomsky has taken the government's bait when he says that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are off their collective rocker.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

Why is the poll only for atheists? Aren't Christians allowed to wear tinfoil hats? A lot of Christians actually believe it is an inside job. But you know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I just know the government would do something like that if they thought it would serve their purpose. Citizens really need to realize the government is not there to protect them as much as they think. Fully trusting your government is silly.

Anyway. I voted "don't know"


----------



## Berlusconi (Feb 1, 2011)

huh said:


> So your guess is that some people in the government demolished some buildings using explosives, killing thousands of their own citizens, as a distraction for the stock market? And they also managed to keep everyones involvement a secret all these years. That sounds like one of the most elaborate and unnecessary ways to create a distraction ever conceived.
> 
> Edit: woah...copying-pasting from abiword really messes up the initial post...lol


You'd be surprised what people would do for money. The government is controlled by major corporations and they will do anything to keep it that way.


----------



## peach (Mar 1, 2011)

Berlusconi said:


> I'm honestly surprised that people can overlook this thread and think that it's so utterly ridiculous. There were so many things wrong with 9/11. I mean seriously, what makes people think that a plane crashing into a building will make it fall the way that it did? The heat from the burning jet fuel was not even enough to weaken the metal beams of the buildings. These buildings were designed to withstand such temperatures. Even if it did get hot enough the building would not collapse the way it did.


Really? And from where did you obtain your structural engineering degree to make this assertion despite the overwhelming evidence (the very fact that it happened on live television!) that several tons of burning jet fuel can and will weaken a building's skeletal frame to the point of total collapse?



berlusconi said:


> I've done a ridiculous amount of research into this, and I know that conspiracies sound ridiculous sometimes, but I do not trust our government one bit.


If you've done a "ridiculous amount of research into this," then you would know that our government can barely tie its own shoes, let alone coordinate a sophisticated and successful attack on its own people. It couldn't even keep a simple break-in of a party headquarters quiet. Watergate should be proof enough that the members of the U.S. government simply lack the die-hard loyalty to keep even the smallest conspiracies quiet for very long.



berlusconi said:


> Also, I'm not sure why this is just for Atheists.


Me neither.



berlusconi said:


> And if it helps make anyone feel better, I absolutely loathe the majority of the US Military.


As a veteran, blow me. If it wasn't for people like me, our military would not be volunteer-only, and people like you would be drafted against your will. So you're welcome.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Berlusconi said:


> You'd be surprised what people would do for money. The government is controlled by major corporations and they will do anything to keep it that way.


They don't have to go to extremes like that to distract people though. Most people are going to passively accept being screwed by the system without much of a struggle. Most are more concerned about their favorite TV show than they are about politics.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Logan X said:


> Why is the poll only for atheists? Aren't Christians allowed to wear tinfoil hats? A lot of Christians actually believe it is an inside job. But you know, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.* I just know the government would do something like that if they thought it would serve their purpose*. Citizens really need to realize the government is not there to protect them as much as they think. Fully trusting your government is silly.
> 
> Anyway. I voted "don't know"


_
More wars_("war on terror" focusing on Middle Easterners/Muslims, the new boogieman)
More arms contracts(suppliers of weaponry, technology, etc)
Mercenary company contracts("private contractors")
Control of foreign lands(resources, people/politics)
Increase of hate against Americans(to make future false flag operations seem more justified/real)
Reduction of _Individual Liberties_ at home(Patriot Act and all the other compromises that take place so easily because people want _security_)

*A lot* was to gain. They are a mafia surrounded by a bunch of people who are too damn comfortable, or scared, to do anything about it.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

peach said:


> Really? And from where did you obtain your structural engineering degree to make this assertion despite the overwhelming evidence (the very fact that it happened on live television!) that *several tons of burning jet fuel* can and will weaken a building's skeletal frame to the point of total collapse?


That was burnt upon impact, *not* that descended through the elevator shafts and caused a pancake collapse(110 floors in 11 seconds, 10 floors per second).



peach said:


> As a veteran, blow me. If it wasn't for people like me, our military would not be volunteer-only, and people like you would be drafted against your will. So you're welcome.


You're biased, you worked for the govt and you find pride in that. You are emotionally attached to the United States Federal mafia.
If it wasn't for people like you there would be no Statist wars.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

I voted for "inside job" but the evidence I've found points out to Israel/Mossad being the main perpetrator of the event.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

WTFnooooo said:


> That was burnt upon impact, *not* that descended through the elevator shafts and caused a pancake collapse(110 floors in 11 seconds, 10 floors per second).


Do you really think this was accomplished by controlled demolition/explosives? If so, what credible evidence is there that actually supports this?


----------



## peach (Mar 1, 2011)

WTFnooooo said:


> That was burnt upon impact,


I see. So several TONS of jet fuel burned upon impact? You believe *that*, but not the more logical conclusion that the towers collapsed after the intense heat melted away its skeletal structure?

Okay...



> *not* that descended through the elevator shafts and caused a pancake collapse(110 floors in 11 seconds, 10 floors per second).


By watching the actual footage that was from the original live broadcasts, you can time it and clearly see that it was slower than 11 seconds.



> You're biased, you worked for the govt and you find pride in that.


Making assumptions only make you look foolish. In fact, I made many references to the ineptitude of the gov't in my previous post, so clearly I have no love for it. I joined the military at age 18 and served for 7 1/2 years because I was poor and had no better prospects of making a good living while getting job training. That's the only reason, and that's the main reason that a lot of people take that road.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

A lot of credible evidence but I wont cite any, it has been almost 10 years since the event and you should have found something long ago. I don't want to ridicule you or degrade you because you haven't found anything, I'm just saying, I wont go into details about the subject unless is something minimal/specific.


----------



## Spindrift (Mar 3, 2011)

WTFnooooo said:


> A lot of credible evidence but I wont cite any, it has been almost 10 years since the event and you should have found something long ago. I don't want to ridicule you or degrade you because you haven't found anything, I'm just saying, I wont go into details about the subject unless is something minimal/specific.


:|


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

peach said:


> I see. So several TONS of jet fuel burned upon impact? You believe *that*, but not the more logical conclusion that the towers collapsed after the intense heat melted away its skeletal structure?


Melted? Even the official story says weakened, not melted steel.



peach said:


> By watching the actual footage that was from the original live broadcasts, you can time it and clearly see that it was slower than 11 seconds.


Okay, for the sake of argument, lets say it's double, 22 seconds, that's 5 _huge/massive_ floors per second.



peach said:


> Making assumptions only make you look foolish. In fact, I made many references to the ineptitude of the gov't in my previous post, so clearly I have no love for it. I joined the military at age 18 and served for 7 1/2 years because I was poor and had no better prospects of making a good living while getting job training. That's the only reason, and that's the main reason that a lot of people take that road.


The "if it wasn't for me people would be forced to serve" is clearly a sign that what you did was beyond economic reasons.


----------



## peach (Mar 1, 2011)

WTFnooooo said:


> A lot of credible evidence but I wont cite any


How convenient. As a skeptic, I dismiss your claims due to lack of credible evidence. But that's just me.



> I don't want to ridicule you or degrade you because you haven't found anything, I'm just saying


The reason that I "haven't found anything" is I didn't start out with a pre-conceived assumption about the events, and then go look for disparate facts to piece together to present a conspiracy theory with. That's just... ridiculous.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

WTFnooooo said:


> A lot of credible evidence but I wont cite any, it has been almost 10 years since the event and you should have found something long ago. I don't want to ridicule you or degrade you because you haven't found anything, I'm just saying, I wont go into details about the subject unless is something minimal/specific.


So there's a lot of it but you're not willing to cite any of it? I've discussed this topic on several forums with lots of different people so I'm familiar with most of the arguments and evidence. I'm not going to randomly criticize arguments that are commonly used from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists because I'm not sure exactly what you believe. If you want to bring up a few examples of something you find convincing I'd be fine with discussing it.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

A skeptic that believes in the pancake theory and could soon start asking for the type of explosives, how and by who it was detonated and where they were placed to believe in something so obvious like a building falling with almost no resistance and tons of debris shooting several feet outwards. Fire doesn't do that.

I wasn't talking to you on the "haven't found anything".
Your insinuation of those who believe in _911 being a fraud_ are people who do research with a preconception is ridiculous in itself. Believing that your govt are a bunch of incompetent fools is the pre-conceived assumption that lead you to believe in the official conspiracy theory.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

huh said:


> So there's a lot of it but you're not willing to cite any of it? I've discussed this topic on several forums with lots of different people so I'm familiar with most of the arguments and evidence. I'm not going to randomly criticize arguments that are commonly used from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists because I'm not sure exactly what you believe. If you want to bring up a few examples of something you find convincing I'd be fine with discussing it.


If you wanted to discuss the demolition you would have asked differently.
I'm not debating 911 anymore.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

WTFnooooo said:


> If you wanted to discuss the demolition you would have asked differently.
> I'm not debating 911 anymore.


I thought my first request was pretty straightforward, but you brushed it off and ignored answering it. I'm not sure how else to ask :stu


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

There was a video recently from a police helicoptor that showed the planes.

Anyway, even before seeing that I didn't believe in any conspiracy theories.


----------



## Berlusconi (Feb 1, 2011)

peach said:


> Really? And from where did you obtain your structural engineering degree to make this assertion despite the overwhelming evidence (the very fact that it happened on live television!) that several tons of burning jet fuel can and will weaken a building's skeletal frame to the point of total collapse?


Your sarcasm is highly appreciated. How is the fact that it was on live television prove that it was the cause of the collapse? There were also secondary explosions captured ON LIVE TELEVISION! Heat rises, it doesn't lower. (A simple rule, really) Even if that were the cause, it would take more than a mere 15 seconds for the collapse to complete. 
The towers being caught on camera (not simply just because, of course) leans towards the hypothesis that there were lateral explosions. (Often referred to as "secondary explosions") During the collapse of building 7 there are obvious signs of lateral explosions. Some debris was thrown as far as four-hundred feet from building 7.

Even if the jet fuel really did weaken the structure it would be absolutely minuscule. There is 741 feet of structure to be weakened.



peach said:


> If you've done a "ridiculous amount of research into this," then you would know that our government can barely tie its own shoes, let alone coordinate a sophisticated and successful attack on its own people. It couldn't even keep a simple break-in of a party headquarters quiet. Watergate should be proof enough that the members of the U.S. government simply lack the die-hard loyalty to keep even the smallest conspiracies quiet for very long.


I wasn't implying that the "inside job" done here was planned and/or put into action by the US government. I do believe that they are more than capable of doing so. They sure did a fine job of making the invasion of Iraq seem like a good idea. They made the entire US population fear terrorist attacks and corporate companies involved profited immensely from the events. It's completely obvious how much of it was covered up. (Or at least their sad attempts to cover it up. More so because Bush was afraid of the people discovering his relations with the Binladen's. They did, in fact, own 7% of the US.)



peach said:


> As a veteran, blow me. If it wasn't for people like me, our military would not be volunteer-only, and people like you would be drafted against your will. So you're welcome.


Yeah, because you're a veteran the US is just a safer place for everyone. Most people join the Military because they can't find a job, so I give you no exception to any other man or woman.

I say this because of the murderous *******s that kill and torment innocent people for no good reason. They go out there to fight TERRORISTS. THEY'RE ALL TERRORISTS.

I will give credit where credit is due and say that I do respect the US Military in the sense that they are always available for protection, WHEN NECESSARY. They're out there fighting a pointless war and constantly ***** about how they're under-appreciated. They're killing innocent people for no good reason and they think that they're out there making our lives better, making us free, etc. It's ****ing enraging, to be honest. I do understand that some of them just don't know what the hell they're even fighting for in the first place. But they should still have the common sense that most people do and know what they're doing isn't right.

I honestly don't care if people are offended or not. It's my own personal opinion and there is no need to mistreat people because you don't believe the same thing that they do.


----------



## Berlusconi (Feb 1, 2011)

peach said:


> I see. So several TONS of jet fuel burned upon impact? You believe *that*, but not the more logical conclusion that the towers collapsed after the intense heat melted away its skeletal structure?


That's perfectly logical. The intense heat on a few floors is not going to "melt" 740 feet of steel structure. It's also not possible for the metal to melt, jet fuel does not burn near hot enough to melt the steel structure of the building, let alone 740 feet of it.

When the plane initially impacted the tower, do you recall that gigantic ball of fire?










That'd be from the 11,489 gallons of fuel.

A lengthy read, but better than I can explain.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2	= 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs
In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.
To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance	Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Concrete	3,300
Steel	450
Nitrogen	1,038
Water Vapor	1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x	1,690 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x	845 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x	1,038 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x	450 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x	3,300 x (T - 25)	Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.
The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

I answered the question, but I don't get it.


----------



## Berlusconi (Feb 1, 2011)

I don't even like this thread. I feel as if everyone is judging me wrongfully based on my beliefs.


----------



## sarafinanickelbocker (May 16, 2010)

Berlusconi said:


> I don't even like this thread. I feel as if everyone is judging me wrongfully based on my beliefs.


It's a strange thread (no seriously, I have no idea what the correlation is between 9/11 and atheism). Don't worry about it if you can help it Berlusconi.


----------

