9/11 Inside Job?

[Dazey]

An iceberg is much much harder than an ice cube.

No it isn't. It's H₂O below 0^oC and has the same physical properties as any other mass of H₂O below its freezing point irrespective of its size. You really should learn a little chemistry before making such silly statements fella.

Actually an Iceberg is frozen seawater. And it would take less than -2 degrees celsius for it to freeze. Also its density would be a bit higher than the density of a simple ice cube made from potable water. That said I would assume that an Iceberg would be indeed harder than an ice cube.

Piss off you, it's by virtue of its mass and temperature and the difference is minimal for the purposes of this argument. If we're going to be pedantic then 1kg of salt water at -10 in the freezer is going to be just as hard as the equivalent mass cut from an iceberg. Bloody Greeks!

Edited April 27, 2013 by Dazey

[ManetsBR]

Let them debunk this:

Or this:

[izzygirl]

An iceberg is much much harder than an ice cube.

No it isn't. It's H₂O below 0^oC and has the same physical properties as any other mass of H₂O below its freezing point irrespective of its size. You really should learn a little chemistry before making such silly statements fella.

From a research about the Titanic:

Dr. Stephen Bruneau of the Center for Cold Ocean Resource Engineering (C-CORE) in St. John's, Newfoundland, has stated that ice cubes in the normal home freezer (the kind used in soft drinks) are only about 10% as strong as steel. That would make them a poor adversary against a steel ship. However, ice deep inside a medium-sized iceberg, such as the one struck by Titanic, can be as cold as -25 degrees Celsius. At that temperature, the core of an iceberg is nearly ten times stronger than the average ice cube, strong enough to challenge the steel plate of an ocean liner. Typically, the crushing strength of ice is only about 1% that of steel.

What an engineer!

Let them debunk this:

Actually that was the first info if I recall. In the first moments, I remember TV saying that other plane was shot down too. And then they changed the version (well, investigation said it wasn't shot down).

[Rustycage]

I also find it odd how a terrorists passport survived the plane explosion and glided down to the street below in near pristine condition for a random person to find.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Rustycage

[ManetsBR]

They make a joke about that on Zeitgeist on the planted evidences part:

"The passport jumps from the hijackers pocket, flies out of the plane, passes throw a huge ball of fire and lands intact over the concrete!" or something like that.

[Dazey]

No it isn't. It's H₂O below 0^oC and has the same physical properties as any other mass of H₂O below its freezing point irrespective of its size. You really should learn a little chemistry before making such silly statements fella.

From a research about the Titanic:

Dr. Stephen Bruneau of the Center for Cold Ocean Resource Engineering (C-CORE) in St. John's, Newfoundland, has stated that ice cubes in the normal home freezer (the kind used in soft drinks) are only about 10% as strong as steel. That would make them a poor adversary against a steel ship. However, ice deep inside a medium-sized iceberg, such as the one struck by Titanic, can be as cold as -25 degrees Celsius. At that temperature, the core of an iceberg is nearly ten times stronger than the average ice cube, strong enough to challenge the steel plate of an ocean liner. Typically, the crushing strength of ice is only about 1% that of steel.

What an engineer!

Clanger well and truly dropped there but I knew what I meant even if I did fail miserably to express it. Remind me what the difference between "None" and "Less than 1" is again would you?

[izzygirl]

Clanger well and truly dropped there but I knew what I meant even if I did fail miserably to express it. Remind me what the difference between "None" and "Less than 1" is again would you?

I never claimed I'm a Mathematician or a Statistician. And I hadn't slept in almost 2 days. I said you can't killed 0'9 people and I was right on that.

[Axls Rocket Queen]

Uh oh Dazey basic chemistry fail.

[Dazey]

Uh oh Dazey basic chemistry fail.

Piss off, I knew what I meant!

[Rustycage]

The SEC investigations?

SEC & EEOC:
Attack Delays Investigations

By Margaret Cronin Fisk
National Law Journal
September 17, 2001

Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system. One of these cases was a sexual harassment charge filed on Sept. 10 against Morgan Stanley, one of the prime corporate victims of the World Trade Center disaster.

A statement from the commission said that "we are confident that we will not lose any significant investigation or case as a result of the loss of our building in New York. No one whom we have sued or whose conduct we have been investigating should doubt our resolve to continue our pursuit of justice in every such matters."

But the short-term problems will be immense, said Gregory Joseph of New York's Law Offices of Gregory Joseph.

"Court papers can largely be reconstituted, but work product has to be reconstructed," he said. "This will cause delays in court and will require significant reduplication of effort." Some data, he added, "won't be recreatable."

"Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

"The SEC will have some difficulty, but the bounce-back will come relatively easily," predicts Harvey Goldschmid, Dwight professor of law at Columbia University and former general counsel of the SEC. "It will throw things off for a period of time, but most of what's important can be regained. They will have to reconstruct these documents. But most of this was backed up or in Washington. They've lost some transcripts but even they're available."

EEOC Records Destroyed

The EEOC's New York office, which was housed in 7 World Trade Center, sustained no loss of life. But all the agency's records were destroyed.

Many of the files are backed up in the computer system, but a substantial number of documents are simply gone, said Spencer Lewis, the EEOC district director. Depositions and notes were not scanned into computers and are lost. With depositions and interviews, the agency will be contacting court reporters "and hoping that they've got them so we can reconstruct files," Lewis said. This covers about 45 active cases, including a recent action against Morgan Stanley.

But employment litigators believe the effect here, too, will be transitory.

"The EEOC is decimated as far as office space goes," but any problems are "only short-term," said Michael Weber of the New York office of Littler Mendelson. "They will get back to business." The agencies will be seeking documents from the private law firms and defendants, Weber notes. "My sense is that we will cooperate," he noted. "Our goal is not to take advantage of this catastrophe."

"A lot of their records they'll have online, so they'll just reprint them out," adds Harkins. "The EEOC is in a better position than the SEC, because the SEC has a lot more confidential files."

[Dazey]

Making crack does not make you an engineer

Nope, building chemical plants does. The crack is just something I do on the side.

[Dazey]

Clanger well and truly dropped there but I knew what I meant even if I did fail miserably to express it. Remind me what the difference between "None" and "Less than 1" is again would you?

I never claimed I'm a Mathematician or a Statistician.

Guess I'd just better be thankful you're not auditing my taxes eh?

[Rustycage]

Good find. I haven't seen that before.

It's a mountain of "coincidences."

• A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
  -- CBS News, September 26
• A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
  -- CBS News, September 26
• No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
  -- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] ³
• Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. ⁴
• Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. ⁵

This graph shows a dramatic spike in pre-attack purchases of put options on the airlines used in the attack. (source: www.optionsclearing.com)

They must have contacted Miss Cleo before the attacks.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Rustycage

[izzygirl]

Clanger well and truly dropped there but I knew what I meant even if I did fail miserably to express it. Remind me what the difference between "None" and "Less than 1" is again would you?

I never claimed I'm a Mathematician or a Statistician.

Guess I'd just better be thankful you're not auditing my taxes eh?

Guess we should be thankful you've not done a Chernobyl yet, given your chemistry knowledge and your job.

Nah... just kidding. As long as we keep you apart from an ice factory we will be alright.

(Fyi, there are computer programs that make those calculations for me nowadyas, you just have to enter the figures and done.)

[Dazey]

(Fyi, there are computer programs that make those calculations for me nowadyas, you just have to enter the figures and done.)

Same here.

[Rustycage]

[SoulMonster]

Yeah cause an ice cube is like an iceberg except that an iceberg is much much harder than an ice cube. You really got me there.

Heh, no, an ice cube isn't much harder than an iceberg -- they are sort of equally hard since they are made up of the same identical material . It has all to do with the momentum (mass x velocity). You'd be amazed about the carnage soft materials can do if you can just get them up to high enough speed. But AGAIN, this is not an important point. The plane did not have to cut the large steel beams, general destruction combined with ravaging fires that weakened the steel would be sufficient to take down the towers.

[Rustycage]

^LOL

[Rustycage]

Good find. I haven't seen that before.

It's a mountain of "coincidences."

• A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

  -- CBS News, September 26

• A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.

  -- CBS News, September 26

• No similar trading occurred on any other airlines

  -- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] ³

• Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. ⁴
• Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. ⁵

This graph shows a dramatic spike in pre-attack purchases of put options on the airlines used in the attack. (source: www.optionsclearing.com)

They must have contacted Miss Cleo before the attacks.

oh my god

i cant deny this....

2.3 trillion missing - evidence gone, blown up in pentagram

sec insider trading - evidence gone, blown up in building 7

put options on air lines - beneficaries unknown

....I've been taught just to kill and fight this

To bury it deeper where nobody can find it

Like nobody wanted to know

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. 2 The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

Just another coincidence. Nothing suspicious at all. /sarcasm

[Nobodys_Fault]

It's gave me a chuckle for someone to compare throwing ice cubes at iron to pieces of glaciers.

Gives me a chuckle every time I hear "Aluminium can't cut steel!" as evidence in these discussions. I'm not sure why people are debating the physical qualities of ice when my entire point was that it's a silly argument.

I mean, what did you think was going to happen? The plane flying at hundreds of miles per hour is just going to bounce of the side of the building like a can of coke?

[SoulMonster]

^LOL

So have you know learnt that the carnage a flying object can achieve is not just a measure of that objects "hardness" but it's momentum, which is the product of its mass and its speed? Or was this beyond you? It explains why water can be used to cut metal, why soft plywood can penetrate harder tree trunks in hurricanes, and why an ice berg could tear a ship's bulk.

And again, as far as I know, no one has said the planes cut any large steel beams at impact. The official conclusion -- if I remember correctly -- was that the combined force of the impact and the ravaging fires compromised the steel structure's integrity (= bending it) causing a collapse which brought down the towers. And as far as I understand this, there is really no scientific dissent regarding this: the experts agree that this is not just fully possible but also a plausible scenario which explains the circumstances fully.

[Rustycage]

It's gave me a chuckle for someone to compare throwing ice cubes at iron to pieces of glaciers.

Gives me a chuckle every time I hear "Aluminium can't cut steel!" as evidence in these discussions. I'm not sure why people are debating the physical qualities of ice when my entire point was that it's a silly argument.

I mean, what did you think was going to happen? The plane flying at hundreds of miles per hour is just going to bounce of the side of the building like a can of coke?

Think about what you're saying.

1: The wings cut steel at the towers

2: The wings didn't cut concrete at the Pentagon.

Just think about that.

[Damn_Smooth]

What plane at the Pentagon?

[Forsaken]

What plane at the Pentagon?

Exactly.

[SoulMonster]

Think about what you're saying.

1: The wings cut steel at the towers

2: The wings didn't cut concrete at the Pentagon.

Just think about that.

Heh. What were the individual thicknesses and strengths of the steel cut at the towers and the concrete not cut at the Pentagon? What were the momentum of the planes hitting the towers and the plane hitting the Pentagon? Only when these questions are answered can we say anything is amiss here. It is quite possible that a plane with one specific mass and velocity could cut steel at a specific quality and thickness while another plane with a different momentum would not be able to destroy concrete at a specific thickness and quality.