or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

911 evidence - Page 4

post #151 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
LOL.......funniest thing ever. Obviously trying to make fun of the movie Zeitgiest which EVERYONE here needs to see.
Loose Change
post #152 of 468
post #153 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
You quoted this post of mine multiple times, but still maintained that my answer to this queston was "yes".

Your last post seems to agree with the latter part, which would suggest that I wasn't entirely off in thinking you're sharp enough to recognize "utterly" as being the key word.
Let's put your quote in context.

Quote:
No, but he could have stopped it from utterly devastating a major American city. If he were actually the can-do Decider type who would take charge and act in a time of crisis that he sold himself as in 2004. Unprecedented disasters were supposed to be his bread and butter.
You're saying the city was "utterly devastated" because Bush didn't take charge and act in a time of crisis, something he claimed to be great at. Since Bush wasn't responsible for the hurricane, your argument falls flat since the city was already devastated. His failing was in mitigating the human suffering because of poor communication between the state and federal government. You could even blame him for cutting funding to the levees (despite the fact several administrations had cut funding, so in that aspect he is not solely responsible not to mention, we've borrowed the money for this entire war, the funding didn't come from the levees, that's just a cute little thing liberals like to add in there) but that wasn't the route you were going or at least you didn't make clear you were going.

Much like the 9/11 truthers, your argument is taking strands of truth and trying to spin gold out of them. There was plenty of blame to go around for what happened after Katrina, a good portion of it can fall squarely on Bush's shoulders but by trying to add a hyperbole argument about how it was all his fault you're taking away from his true failings with that disaster. People will just shun you as a loon and poke holes in your logic and that doesn't help. There are very easy and convincing arguments of what Bush failed to do, because facts make things easy and convincing.

Since I don't want to derail this thread any further, I'll let this be my last word in on Katrina.

For the record, ut·ter·ly (tr-l)
adv.
Completely; absolutely; entirely.

Since all of New Orleans wasn't entirely devastated (only parts of it were flooded), I ignored that part of your sentence as hyperbole.
post #154 of 468
Wow ... I posted on page one, go back to real life and this thread is already 4 pages?!

Did anybody reply with an answer that addresses the model and explanation of the collapse as described in the paper I linked to? If not, what else is there to discuss. Cite some credible structural engineer (and not a demolitions hobbist) that can even beginning to argue against that work and we can really have a discussion. Everything else is just noise.

And yt, no the professors that wrote that paper did not investigate the site themselves. They did not have to, at all. The foundation of the conspiracy is that this is not possible, and there you have a good document explaining it to you. It is the burden of the conspiracy people to refute those points, which are well accepted in the engineering community.
post #155 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
No wonder you're an idiot.
Your homework made me laugh.
post #156 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post
You're saying the city was "utterly devastated" because Bush didn't take charge and act in a time of crisis, something he claimed to be great at. Since Bush wasn't responsible for the hurricane, your argument falls flat since the city was already devastated. His failing was in mitigating the human suffering because of poor communication between the state and federal government. You could even blame him for cutting funding to the levees (despite the fact several administrations had cut funding, so in that aspect he is not solely responsible not to mention, we've borrowed the money for this entire war, the funding didn't come from the levees, that's just a cute little thing liberals like to add in there) but that wasn't the route you were going or at least you didn't make clear you were going.
You're right, it wasn't where I was going. Because I was making a very simple point about Bush's failure to live up to his own hype, without the intention of making a detailed argument for exactly how and why he failed every step of the way. But you went ahead and concocted one and assigned it to me, which is irritating enough, but it's also the broadest and most asinine of strawman. No one in their right mind is saying Bush should've stopped a hurricane from forming, or that he personally poked holes in the levees, or that the states and local governments bear absolutely no responsibility for the aftermath. I certainly didn't, so I ask again politely: don't quote my posts if you're going to disregard what they say and argue against a bunch of stuff you made you.

Oh, and...

Quote:
For the record, ut·ter·ly (tr-l)
adv.
Completely; absolutely; entirely.

Since all of New Orleans wasn't entirely devastated (only parts of it were flooded), I ignored that part of your sentence as hyperbole.
Main Entry:
dev·as·tate Listen to the pronunciation of devastate
Pronunciation:
\ˈde-və-ˌstāt\
Function:
transitive verb

1 : to bring to ruin or desolation by violent action <a country devastated by war>
2 : to reduce to chaos, disorder, or helplessness : overwhelm <devastated by grief> <her wisecrack devastated the class>
synonyms see ravage

"Devastate" does not mean "destroy".
post #157 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Wow ... I posted on page one, go back to real life and this thread is already 4 pages?!

Did anybody reply with an answer that addresses the model and explanation of the collapse as described in the paper I linked to? If not, what else is there to discuss. Cite some credible structural engineer (and not a demolitions hobbist) that can even beginning to argue against that work and we can really have a discussion. Everything else is just noise.

And yt, no the professors that wrote that paper did not investigate the site themselves. They did not have to, at all. The foundation of the conspiracy is that this is not possible, and there you have a good document explaining it to you. It is the burden of the conspiracy people to refute those points, which are well accepted in the engineering community.

Sir, this is a thread on 911 conspiracies. Facts are not appreciated here. Please supply some outlandish suppositons based on misunderstandings of basic physics, then we'll talk!
post #158 of 468
All the people here who call me a nutjob for thinking it was an inside job have still not explained how Building 7 collapsed.
post #159 of 468
Maybe that's because you're an asshole.
post #160 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
All the people here who call me a nutjob for thinking it was an inside job have still not explained how Building 7 collapsed.
After about two minutes of looking on Wikipedia:

Quote:
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.
Or, you know, it was brought down on purpose just in case knocking TWO 110-STORY BUILDINGS down wasn't enough.
post #161 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
After about two minutes of looking on Wikipedia:



Or, you know, it was brought down on purpose just in case knocking TWO 110-STORY BUILDINGS down wasn't enough.
Another wacky bit of illogic regarding WT-7 is the fact that owner told the press that the Fire Chief had called him and told him that they couldn't save the building, and that he (the owner) had told the Fire Chief "I guess we'd better pull it". According to the conspiracy theorists, "pull it" is a demolition term, so the owner must have wanted the Fire Chief and his men to enter a burning building that they thought would collapse in order to ILLEGALLY blow it up (the firemen were doing this!), and that not only did he illegally conspire with the Fire Chief and the firemen who were trying to save the building, he then went and told the PRESS about his illegal plan to blow the building up!

The fact that they base their "proof" that WT-7 was blown up on a PUBLIC statement by the owner shows how frigging RETARDED the conspiracy theorists are.
post #162 of 468
I think calling the official story 'inarguably false' is kind of misleading when the documentary linked inspires more questions than answers as to the theory of a controlled demolition. Nevertheless, I watched all three parts for the sake of argument. Plus, I haven’t examined the exact reasoning behind the fall of the towers and I felt somewhat compelled to examine all sides of the argument.

Since people are arguing for proof - well, okay, Darth Sidious is - I'll just provide some links.

Some of my thoughts -

Fire, Fire: The documentary shows examples of other buildings that have sustained fires for X amount of hours and compares that to the damage sustained on 9/11 in the towers to suggest that the towers couldn't have fallen 'straight down' unless they were blown up. Fine; but it doesn't take into account the other factors that contributed to the collapse of the WTC. The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain may have been burning for 20 hours and still standing, but that doesn't take into account the fact that it wasn't hit by a commercial airliner at top speed. Furthermore, the construction of the WTC is also fundamentally different from that of the Windsor Tower (hell, even the documentary provides evidence of that in the section that describes how it was built): tube-in-tube. To save space, support columns were moved to the outer wall. Support trusses connected the outer wall to the inner core, and those trusses in turn were coated with a ‘sprayed-on’ fire coating rather than being encased in concrete.

As the source that El Capitan America provided points out, some of the columns were severed by the plane’s impact, and the stress was redistributed to other columns. Pile on the fire, the construction of the building itself, the stripped fire-proofing, and the sagging trusses and you have a collapse.

Explosions: This was frustrating for me to hear over and over again. The documentary uses eyewitness testimony of hearing explosions that sound, rather ominously, ‘like a bomb.’ But just because it sounds ‘like a bomb’ doesn’t mean it is a bomb.

Case-in-point: the documentary likes to note how there were ground-level explosions before the building collapse. They point to photographic and video evidence of smoke below the towers just before they collapsed, and the ‘sounds’ of several explosions.

I think one thing to fundamentally keep in mind is that controlled demolitions are loud. They make noise that can be heard from miles away. You also have to take into account that when a building is rigged to blow, it takes weeks and months to prepare. It isn’t something – unlike what the documentary suggests – that can be done on a quick time frame, especially when you’re dealing with the Twin Towers. There’s some spotty eyewitness testimony that I’ll get to in a second. A written example of a typical controlled demolition .

Compare this with the WTC collapse. The documentary shows a video taken from far away that times sounds coming from the WTC at the time of its pre-collapse – except you can barely hear anything, unless the rumbling as the towers fell is evidence of an ‘explosion.’

Granted, it’s hard to tell from these videoclips, but I think the documentary’s method of proving explosions is dubious at best because they use the exact same method of ‘let’s look at videos!’ without the actual legwork that the NIST did.

Then there’s an elusive squibs, except they’re not that elusive. The documentary likes to think that the puffs of air ejecting from the windows as the building collapses is evidence of a controlled demolition. The NIST Report (you can view it here) has already pointed out the cause of the collapse. The puffs of smoke, according to them:

Quote:
4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?
No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.
EDIT: I cleared up some of my sentences.
post #163 of 468
Sourcing: I think there’s a point in the video where they cite a demolition expert and call him, rather succinctly, ‘demolition expert.’

Instead of arguing about lazy citations, I guess I’ll talk about the people that are constantly championed in the 9/11 Truth movement.

- Steven E. Jones: Jones wrote a paper about how a controlled demolition brought down the towers. Jones was a professor of physics at BYU. His paper was peer-reviewed, but not by a civil engineering journal. You can see a list of responses to Jones’ paper here.

This is mentioned in the documentary, and they present Jones as a beacon for the truth, but as seen in the link, some of the people who specialize in this field disagree with the paper.

- William Rodriguez: I wrote about the documentary’s argument that because people heard an explosion, it automatically means that bombs went off in the WTC. They use janitor William Rodriguez’s claims repeatedly. Rodriguez was in the building that day, but his story keeps on changing. For instance, CNN quoted him as saying: "’We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture,’ Rodriguez said. ‘And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.’” No claim of explosives there; but then again, Rodriguez just survived a horrific ordeal. Rodriguez typically argues that his account is ignored by those investigating the case.

Yet, in his 2004 testimony to the NIST, Rodriguez says:
Quote:
The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized.
No mention of his claim that there were explosives in the basement. Here’s a fairly exhaustive run-through of Rodriguez’s claims.

- Kevin Ryan: The ex-employee of UL Certified Steel is also mentioned in this documentary. Ryan likes to make issue that the buildings should have easily withstood the stress caused by the burning jet fire, and that UL certified the steel components of the WTC.

The NIST-sponsored fire-proofing tests at UL

The only problem with Ryan’s testimony is that it’s a – how do you say – modification of the truth. First, UL doesn’t certify steel components (steel column or trusses) like Ryan says, but assemblies. UL also didn’t replicate the impact levels – they replicated a floor system with fire proofing as it would’ve been before the impact and tested it with various fireproofing thickness. The test trusses were physically undamaged and had intact fireproofing. Keep in mind, though, that the fire conditions in the towers were much worse. Case in point. Also keep in mind that the official response was never that jet-fuel was the primary cause of the collapse but one of the factors.

- Scott Forbes: I’m perplexed by this testimony because there doesn’t appear to be any info from other people that reported the mysterious power-down. In this interview, for instance, Forbes argues that many people have talked to him and that he was contacted by a journalist. Who are they? Where are they? Forbes later admits that he has no knowledge of the conditions above and below his floor about the mysterious power down. Forbes also says that the power down condition was from 12 noon on Saturday, September 8, 2001 to approximately 2 PM on Sunday 9/9. That wouldn’t be enough time for setting up for a controlled demolition.

WTC 7: There’s a weird argument that WTC 7 didn’t sustain enough significant damage in order to fall. Therefore: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION! Since I’m lazy: Article.

To argue that the contents of WTC 7 or that Silverstein had nefarious intentions is 'fine' (and even that’s a subject for debate), but they’re negligible in the study of how WTC 7 fell. They don’t automatically prove ‘demolition’.

This is another good one. And, what the hell, read the NIST findings.

I think what annoys me about the documentary (and for that matter Loose Change, Zeitgeist, etc.) is that it argues that the NIST report is faulty science and then proceeds to present faulty science of its own; and in our culture, where science is maligned and/or misunderstood, that's dangerous.

I agree with Seabass: the controlled demolition theory relies on facts that contradict one another. It relies on the same eyewitnesses that make up the 9/11 Truth movement. It connects loose threads and tries to pass it off as definite evidence.
post #164 of 468
Eyewitnesses said it sounded like a bomb? Why would I take a New York resident's word for what a bomb sounds like. Ever hear or watch an entire oil refinery explode at once? I have. Did it sound like it a bomb? I guess so. What would it have sounded like had it been sabotage rather than negligence? I have no idea. And neither do these eyewitnesses.
post #165 of 468
Also, what else could the sound be compared to? Could be metaphorical..."It sounded like a bomb". Duh.
post #166 of 468
Has anyone asked the consipracy theorists WHY someone would go the trouble of arranging super-secret controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers?

Say the U.S government or Israel or KONTROL wanted to foment conflict between the U.S. and the Middle East or build support for domestic/foreign intelligence and military operations or ruin The Coup's album cover.

While planning to do this by crashing four planes into four buildings, why would "they" feel like taking on the added trouble of engineering the super-secret, controlled demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world?

Consider consider how much more effort would have been involved in carrying out the controlled demolitions, and particularly in keeping it secret. And think about the body count, property damage and emotional impact they would already be achieving with four planes into four buildings before any collapse. It just doesn't make sense, does it?
post #167 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
Has anyone asked the consipracy theorists WHY someone would go the trouble of arranging super-secret controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers?

Say the U.S government or Israel or KONTROL wanted to foment conflict between the U.S. and the Middle East or build support for domestic/foreign intelligence and military operations or ruin The Coup's album cover.

While planning to do this by crashing four planes into four buildings, why would "they" feel like taking on the added trouble of engineering the super-secret, controlled demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world?
Consider consider how much more effort would have been involved in carrying out the controlled demolitions, and particularly in keeping it secret. And think about the body count, property damage and emotional impact they would already be achieving with four planes into four buildings before any collapse. It just doesn't make sense, does it?

First, they arent the tallest. Second, there are MANY reasons for this. Third, Im not going into it. You'll find out one day.
post #168 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
First, they arent the tallest. Second, there are MANY reasons for this. Third, Im not going into it. You'll find out one day.
Well, if that didn't convince him, I don't know what would.
post #169 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
First, they arent the tallest. Second, there are MANY reasons for this. Third, Im not going into it. You'll find out one day.

The line you quoted was "two of the tallest", you fucking retard, which was accurate. Read more carefully and stop picking apart meaningless tidbits while ignoring the big picture like every other inane conspiracy theorist.
post #170 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
You'll find out one day.
BrianM, if you head home tonight and see a car plastered with Ron Paul stickers parked on your street, run. Don't slow down, don't think, just run.
post #171 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
First, they arent the tallest. Second, there are MANY reasons for this. Third, Im not going into it. You'll find out one day.
I see. So it's on us to provide proof for everything we say, but you don't have to provide shit. That's fair.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, and assume that yt would like you to stay off her side. You make even conspiracy theorists look bad.
post #172 of 468
Thread Starter 
Even if I am psychologically predisposed to see conspiracy where others see a closed case, I don't see that as the disability that a lot of people in this forum do. There's nothing wrong with exploring questions that haven't been adequately answered.

I have ordered some books and am going to attempt to educate myself about this situation, even though it's a stress-inducing subject. Looking around at some of the prevailing theories, there is a lot of far-fetched hypothesizing mixed in with serious questions, but to me the demolition itself of the three towers is the most perplexing and fascinating, though I'm at a disadvantage not being an engineer or scientist.

I found an interesting article about Steven Jones and his continuing, self-funded research on the subject. Good for him for persisting in the face of violent opposition, even if he ends up with nothing to show for it. If there is any area of this unimaginable crime that merits further investigation, it's the scientific explanation for the disintegration of the towers.

Here is an excerpt:

Quote:
Jones was energized in November when he and others received a response from the national lab charged by Congress to determine why and how the towers collapsed. The letter contained the following phrase:

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

"That," Jones said, "really was progress. It made me believe we could talk with them."

It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can't explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.

Meanwhile, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said that its best hypothesis for the fall of the third tower, WTC 7 — diesel fuel stored in the building caused fires that collapsed the building — has a "low probability" of being correct.

At the time of his separation with BYU, which he admitted was painful, Jones found himself burned by his association with a loose confederation of 9/11 truth-seekers, some of them clearly kooky conspiracy theorists, and by some of his own statements.

Now, he and a number of scientific colleagues are taking a more cautious, mainstream approach.

His new peer-reviewed paper in the Open Civil Engineering Journal doesn't rip NIST or FEMA or the government. It does just the opposite. It lays out 14 points of agreement Jones and his colleagues have with the official government reports.
link

More engineers question the official explanation HERE and HERE.
post #173 of 468
There's a huge difference between "can't explain the collapse" and "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". One implies they have no idea what happened. The other implies that they don't know evey last detail.
post #174 of 468
This part is misleading:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deseret Article
It is striking. After producing a 10,000-page report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology can't explain the collapse. And on its Web site, NIST clearly states that nowhere in its report did it say that steel in the Twin Towers melted due to fires. In fact, the fires reached only 1,000 degrees Celsius. Steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIST's WTC website
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR

7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

And from the Popular Mechanics article on the collapse of the towers:

Quote:
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. 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."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...l?page=4#steel

Jones and co. like to argue that fires did not melt the steel, so therefore the towers couldn't have fell, except they fail to take into account the other factors. It didn't need to melt. It just had to lose some of its structural strength.

What Dickson said as well.
post #175 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Even if I am psychologically predisposed to see conspiracy where others see a closed case, I don't see that as the disability that a lot of people in this forum do. There's nothing wrong with exploring questions that haven't been adequately answered.
I hope this doesn't come off as too snarky, but is there an answer that would satisfy you that isn't a conspiracy? You keep sort of framing this around the idea of "keeping an open mind" but can you conceive of a scientific explanation that would remove all doubt from your mind? Do all these "questions" about 9/11 coalesce into a complete alternate theory? And if they don't, doesn't it make you wonder whether they're just the result of most of us having little more than a high school education in physics?

You're lightly berating us for accepting the "official theory" from the advantage of not having one yourself. Saying things "don't add up" isn't a compelling argument unless they add up to something else.
post #176 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Even if I am psychologically predisposed to see conspiracy where others see a closed case, I don't see that as the disability that a lot of people in this forum do.
I don't think you mean to, but some of that comes off sounding of a piece with the intelligent design and creationism advocates who encourage a continued "open debate" on the subject of evolution because we can't completely PROVE that men evolved from apes, and because there are still questions related to evolution that science hasn't 100% solved.

There's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind but at some point a rational mind accepts the weight of scientific evidence in the absence of substantial data to the contrary.
post #177 of 468
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Count Floyd View Post
I hope this doesn't come off as too snarky, but is there an answer that would satisfy you that isn't a conspiracy? You keep sort of framing this around the idea of "keeping an open mind" but can you conceive of a scientific explanation that would remove all doubt from your mind? Do all these "questions" about 9/11 coalesce into a complete alternate theory? And if they don't, doesn't it make you wonder whether they're just the result of most of us having little more than a high school education in physics?

You're lightly berating us for accepting the "official theory" from the advantage of not having one yourself. Saying things "don't add up" isn't a compelling argument unless they add up to something else.
First of all, how am berating anybody? I'm really just curious, maybe a little angry but not at anyone on CHUD. I'm angry because of the possible implications, having not really focused on 9/11 because the whole thing is/was too traumatic until now.

I personally can't come up with a hypothesis but I'm interested in what people who have a background in physics, engineering, chemistry, etc. have to say about this because instinctively, I see the towers falling with my own eyes and try to make that gibe with the official explanation and it doesn't. Ergo, I'd like to find out more about this, read as much as I can, and decide for myself what the most likely hypothesis is based on what limited knowledge I have and what exists out there (difficult since the evidence and the crime scene have been for the most part destroyed).

Sado, yeah, but for those explanations to make sense, you would have a much more irregular falling pattern, wouldn't you? If metal is weakening, wouldn't it lean, tilt, maybe break off? How does it disintegrate like that in rapid succession all the way down to the earth at near the speed of gravity?

Here's a comment from one of the engineers at the first site I linked to speaking to this:

Quote:
"The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures.
link
post #178 of 468
yt, how about my question at post #168 above?
post #179 of 468
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
I don't think you mean to, but some of that comes off sounding of a piece with the intelligent design and creationism advocates who encourage a continued "open debate" on the subject of evolution because we can't completely PROVE that men evolved from apes, and because there are still questions related to evolution that science hasn't 100% solved.

There's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind but at some point a rational mind accepts the weight of scientific evidence in the absence of substantial data to the contrary.
That's pretty funny, actually, and maybe you're right. I hadn't thought about that before. But how is your side of the argument any more rational than mine? Not one person here knows the empirical truth about what happened. We're all choosing what sources to believe. The NIST report and the Popular Science story and the 9/11 Commission report are all subjective analyses. They're all saying what could have brought the towers down, not what actually did bring the towers down as proven by the evidence.
post #180 of 468
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianM View Post
yt, how about my question at post #168 above?
See post #181!
post #181 of 468
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
There's a huge difference between "can't explain the collapse" and "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". One implies they have no idea what happened. The other implies that they don't know evey last detail.
This is the official scientific body charged with determining a full explanation. Knowing every last detail is their job, isn't it? Isn't everyone in this country, the least of which are the people whose family members were there, due a complete, fully vetted explanation?

Here's another thing I've been wondering about: what if someone who worked at the WTC knew everything about the design, engineering and construction of the structure, knew it was tested and proved to be able to withstand fire, airplanes hitting it, etc. Knew that it was safe, went to work there and died because those things that were guaranteed to hold strong, that had been allegedly tested for all these possible adversities, failed in such a spectacular way. Wouldn't that be grounds for both massive civil lawsuits and fraud, if not manslaughter charges?
post #182 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post

Sado, yeah, but for those explanations to make sense, you would have a much more irregular falling pattern, wouldn't you? If metal is weakening, wouldn't it lean, tilt, maybe break off? How does it disintegrate like that in rapid succession all the way down to the earth at near the speed of gravity?
A link to this picture was posted on page 3, yt.




Unless you're asking why the towers didn't lean, tilt or break off from the base of the structure. But why would it do that?
post #183 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
This is the official scientific body charged with determining a full explanation. Knowing every last detail is their job, isn't it? Isn't everyone in this country, the least of which are the people whose family members were there, due a complete, fully vetted explanation?

Here's another thing I've been wondering about: what if someone who worked at the WTC knew everything about the design, engineering and construction of the structure, knew it was tested and proved to be able to withstand fire, airplanes hitting it, etc. Knew that it was safe, went to work there and died because those things that were guaranteed to hold strong, that had been allegedly tested for all these possible adversities, failed in such a spectacular way. Wouldn't that be grounds for both massive civil lawsuits and fraud, if not manslaughter charges?
Come on, yt.

The first paragraph is ridiculous, and I refuse to believe you don't recognize that. You're smarter than suggesting that anyone could have a complete picture of what happened that day.

As to the second part, what basis would someone have for the civil lawsuits? If you've done your homework (and much of it is done for you in this very thread) you can see that the building did perform to spec on that day.
post #184 of 468
Thread Starter 
True, and that would make sense close to the fire, but what about all the lower floors, all the way to the basement?

Here are some more pics...

Quote:


Fire has never done this to steel. But a thermite incendiary cutter charge does. The byproduct of thermite is molten iron. The byproduct of thousands of thermite cutter charges is tons of molten iron — as witnessed by numerous NYFD personnel and the WTC Structural Engineer, Leslie Robertson.



Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?



The 20 to 50 ton steel columns & beams were broken apart at welded connections and ejected laterally up to 500 feet.



Numerous Squibs (mis-timed explosions) can be seen seen 20 to 40 floors ahead of the advancing "collapse". NIST claims that they are "puffs of air" created from the pancaking floors above. But there are no pancaking floors above, they are not air but pulverized building materials, they occur precisely at the center of the building in an "open office plan", and finally, the 160 to 200 feet per second speed of this debris suggests they could only have been propelled by explosives.
Link
post #185 of 468
Thread Starter 
Quote:


The FEMA report notes:
"The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." NIST dropped this like a hot potato. These are all tell tell signs of the use of thermate (sulphur + thermite) incendiary cutter charges."



It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this without buckling. Thermate cutter charges create over 4,500°F. Fires — even with jet fuel — create only 1,700°F maximum.



Physics professor Steven Jones finds, in this previously molten sample from the WTC, the chemical traces of Thermate — including Fluorine, Manganese, Sulphur, Potassium, etc.



Steven Jones, PhD physicist discovers previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust which blanketed lower Manhattan. Sizes are up to 1/16" diameter. The findings are corroborated by EPA but not explained. Molten iron is the byproduct of Thermite. It contains the chemical signature of thermate.
More at the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
post #186 of 468
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD View Post
Come on, yt.

The first paragraph is ridiculous, and I refuse to believe you don't recognize that. You're smarter than suggesting that anyone could have a complete picture of what happened that day.

As to the second part, what basis would someone have for the civil lawsuits? If you've done your homework (and much of it is done for you in this very thread) you can see that the building did perform to spec on that day.
I don't understand what you mean. How is it not smart to suggest that a full, independent investigation by scientists with no political or financial interference couldn't come up with a seamless, thorough scientific explanation? Steven Jones wasn't even one of the official investigators and he found this:



And to the second part, the buildings performed to spec by disintegrating? Is that true?
post #187 of 468
Why did they wait to blow the buildings? Could've gotten a lot more fatalities and a lot less questions if they had set the bombs off to blow right after the planes hit.

Then of course, there's also the question why no one in any of the offices ever questioned what these strange bomb packs on the walls were that mysteriously appeared over the weekend.
post #188 of 468
My apologies in advance for cheapening the discussion.

post #189 of 468


The Aliens couldn't even knock them fully down either! It must have been Bush! Where's Uncle Cthulhu when you need him?
post #190 of 468
Thread Starter 
The difference between eyewitness testimony and physical evidence is that you can't really discredit physical evidence's character or question its motives.
post #191 of 468
You can, however, discredit the people that present the evidence and question their motives. And in doing so the reliability of said evidence also comes into question.
post #192 of 468
You talking about one man's unsubstantiated claims? I'd hardly call that physical evidence... they've never found any thermite at ground zero.
post #193 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
The difference between eyewitness testimony and physical evidence is that you can't really discredit physical evidence's character or question its motives.
No, but you can certainly question both of those things for the person interpreting the physical evidence. Just because someone can take pictures of pieces of metal and apply CSI-level logic to explain why THIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRUE IF IT WAS TERRORISTS, doesn't mean it's going to blow my mind. These thing are all anecdotal, overly specific, and not even remotely inclusive or contextual enough to actually provide a sound theory. You can't give me one picture of a bent rod, out of hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble, and expect this to shatter my belief in the qualified explanations that have been given and make sense even to a laymen if you put them in context.

Either way. Someone already figured it out for us.

post #194 of 468
Thread Starter 
LOL. Indeed. Well, to be fair, those pictures I posted are part of a website that has lots of other facets, not just pictures strung together. I get the feeling though that the only people curious about this are myself and Darth Sidious. As with everything I post in this forum, it's something that interests me that I think might interest other politically minded chewers, but in this case I think it's a misfire.
post #195 of 468
Quote:
Here's another thing I've been wondering about: what if someone who worked at the WTC knew everything about the design, engineering and construction of the structure, knew it was tested and proved to be able to withstand fire, airplanes hitting it, etc. Knew that it was safe, went to work there and died because those things that were guaranteed to hold strong, that had been allegedly tested for all these possible adversities, failed in such a spectacular way. Wouldn't that be grounds for both massive civil lawsuits and fraud, if not manslaughter charges?
This is so, so unbelievably ridiculous, and one of many reasons why you should read 102 Minutes* like people have been telling you to. Yes, there was probably somebody responsible -- in 1973, and after the fire in '75, and the bombing in '93 -- whose job it was to troubleshoot all possible scenarios. Which still doesn't compensate for a 21st CENTURY 747 FULL OF FUEL CRASHING INTO THE BUILDING AT HIGH SPEED AND ALTITUDE.

I have to be honest, a lot of people are discussing this with you because they like and respect you, but your "an opinion is an opinion!" attitude ain't helping matters.

*Just one fun fact from that book. Because the Towers were developed by the Port Authority, a bistate agency, they were not subject to New York state building codes. Hrum.
post #196 of 468
Coming from someone who actually saw what the destruction looked like the day after (and trust me, none of you have any idea what the scene was like unless you've seen it in person) and was basically obsessed with it for a while (as I'm sure most people in the city were) I definitely wanted to know what happened and why. I read up everything I could about the case, watched every doc.

I think everyone posting in this thread is curious, it's just that we've all had years and years to do our own research and realize how fucking ridiculous it is to believe a few non-experts, college kids and crackpots when there's so much overwhelming evidence and testimony out there that shows that things really did happen as it appeared. You have to know the conspiracy theorist's side is in the wrong when their bible is Loose fucking Change, a movie originally made as fiction and riddled with inaccuracies and misquotes.

It's funny how you basically imply that people are accepting the official word and blindly following like sheep, when the opposite is true as well. I know people who've seen Loose Change or a Youtube video and just immediately buy into it without looking into the case for themselves.

Trust us and grab 102 Minutes, and read some other sites besides the ones you've been linking to. Do look into this, you'll see why we're being forceful about this.
post #197 of 468
Not to step on anyone's toes (as I feel weird even talking about 9/11, having not been there but having several close friends who were, and not being able to really fathom what it must have been like...what Alex said about having no idea, basically), but the other side that nobody barely talks about when it comes to these conspiracy theories is that it's incredibly insulting to the people who died. That one about the pilot taking the military exercises and then a year later, his plane crashes into the Pentagon? Give me a fucking break.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go wash this sand out of my vagina.
post #198 of 468
Thread Starter 
I'm sure it was 100 times worse for you than it was for me, 3000 miles away. I ordered 102 Minutes and will read it. But you have to also understand that I don't trust the government or media to tell the truth. I saw all the same coverage as you did in the wake of the event, and watched Loose Change noting that some of what was presented was outlandish. But the two sites I've linked to don't strike me as frivolous, and I'm sure there's more out there on the unregulated, unincorporated web to find and explore. So I'll read 102 Minutes but will you look at these sites I've linked to?

Here is an interesting quote that speaks to the nature of the unquestioning coverage in the post-911 era, from Air Force Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski:

Quote:
"I have been told by reporters that they will not report their own insights or contrary evaluations of the official 9/11 story, because to question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."
link
post #199 of 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
you have to also understand that I don't trust the government or media to tell the truth.
But dont you think that going in completely the opposite direction can be as limiting to an objective perspective as someone who blindly accepts everything the government and media tell them? Aren't you leaving yourself open to being just as blinkered as a consequence?

'A lie is best hidden between two truths'? That sort of thing?

Does it ever scare you that no matter what you find out, what you read and who you talk to, you may simply never know the honest-to-goodness exact truth with things like this? Or that what you may percieve as the trutyh of something may simply be your perception of it anyway?

It took me a long time to come to terms with that, that I will probably simply never know the actual answers to a lot of the questions I've seeked in the past.
post #200 of 468
Quote:


"Fire has never done this to steel. But a thermite incendiary cutter charge does. The byproduct of thermite is molten iron. The byproduct of thousands of thermite cutter charges is tons of molten iron — as witnessed by numerous NYFD personnel and the WTC Structural Engineer, Leslie Robertson."

That picture looks like a piece of steel that was twisted, bent, torn apart. It doesn't look like it was "melted". Could the force of twisting the metal heated it up a bit and softened it somewhat? ? I'm not an expert, but just take a paperclip and bend it back and forth many times, and see how amazingly hot it gets. Nevertheless That piece is all jagged like it was torn apart while NOT in a molten state.



"Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?"

Where is the source for this "Metal flowing like lava" quote? I've only found references to newspapers talking about steel "melting" prior to the collapse, but it only seems to be referring to theories about what CAUSED the collapse, not actual rivers of molten steel. The newspapers were likely just "melt" to describe the softening of steel, as opposed to it truly liquifying, using the term inaccurately.


"The 20 to 50 ton steel columns & beams were broken apart at welded connections and ejected laterally up to 500 feet."

So what? They were being crushed by the weight of an incredible amount of material descending upon them.



"Numerous Squibs (mis-timed explosions) can be seen seen 20 to 40 floors ahead of the advancing "collapse". NIST claims that they are "puffs of air" created from the pancaking floors above. But there are no pancaking floors above, they are not air but pulverized building materials, they occur precisely at the center of the building in an "open office plan", and finally, the 160 to 200 feet per second speed of this debris suggests they could only have been propelled by explosives."

The air from building materials being pulverized as the floors pancake on top of eachother is, yes, going to be full of pulverized building material, and is going to be forced downwards explosively. And that picture shows ONE puff blowing out of one window in the floors below. How does that jibe with a "controlled demolition", which would have all the charges go off at once? And where on earth is it a "fact" that nothing can propel material as fast as a controlled demolition? That's like saying "No one can throw a baseball faster then a firecracker's explosion can". The compressed air from the pancaking floors above is forced down into the air-conditioned (and externally sealed) office floors, building up pressure, which causes SOME windows to blow out. It's kind of what happens when you press down on the handle of your bicicle pump. The handle may be way back, but air is still forced out of the air hose far away from the handle.

I hope you respond to this, because otherwise I feel you are not doing me the courtesy of having an actual conversation with me. Posting endless links and quotes from the Internet is not engaging in conversation, and it forces other people to do all the work and thinking for you. Please respond to these points here. Please to not cut and paste more photos and links.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse