Here's something new.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXTAgFYyvUE
The official story of flight 93 doesn't add up.
Here's something new.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXTAgFYyvUE
The official story of flight 93 doesn't add up.
May of last year is new?
...the loser being unconscious of defeat, the victor is denied the recognition of victory.pwnd.
Of course, it's difficult to pwn someone who's pathalogically unable to admit they might be wrong.
Devil's Dictionary definition of...
*sigh*
I think I lost a couple of IQ points just by opening this thread.
"I've been a 9/11 truther for a little over a year now."
that's when I closed it...
Have anything reliable?
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
No shit.
I thought maybe it would go into saying we shot it down or something. Nope... Same BS I already seen.
Why is a person stupid if he/she questions 9/11? I don't get it. Are people just suppose to believe everything that the government tells them? Are you going to tell me that the government does not hide things from the public?
Not at all.
However, the facts are clear on so many things the truthers try to say otherwise on. Maybe if they weren't so wacky about it, they would be believed.
The only thing I believe may be hidden is that maybe we actually shot flight 93 down. I have no doubt that the planes were what we are told however. Two hit the towers, and one hit the pentagon. Zero doubt about that.
Planes hitting the towers or not is just one layer of layers upon layers of conspiracy theories concerning 9/11....it's illogical to conclude that all conspiracy theories are wrong if only one conspiracy theory turns out to be wrong....especially when the source of said conspiracy cannot be clearly defined...
Careful, you don't have a couple of IQ points to lose...
Usually, the simplest solution is true. Conspiracies of such magnitude would never survive.
That's exactly what the 9/11 Bush Commission and all the peeps who suck at the Bush-era teet wants you to think....the government finally did something right!
Since you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.That's exactly what the 9/11 Bush Commission and all the peeps who suck at the Bush-era teet wants you to think....the government finally did something right!
Interested?
...Ah, but they have....should I point some out for you?
That's what your saying right? The most inept President since Calvin Coolidge formed a commission that got everything right the first time...
Not interested.
I have better things to do.
KO...time out...
Here's some more evidence of an inside job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRC4lCQuBmc
The planes that hit the towers weren't civilian airliners. The pictures clearly show it.
Welcome back. Our usual comic relief seems to be on hiatus.
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
post6568713
Here's some more stuff.
This person's YouTube channel page is full of good stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/user/911Infow.../0/yCgMCw2-aJ0
I found some good links at this site...
http://911caper.com/
...such as this one.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsYHVHm3Y20
(5 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...fin+fraud&aq=f
Last edited by Cosmored; 10-20-2010 at 11:31 AM.
what planes hit the towers then?
does this mean that it wasn't a controlled demolition after all?
You're being deliberately obtuse. Some planes that the goverment substituted for the civilian airliners hit the towers. Those videos make it very clear.what planes hit the towers then?
What in those videos makes you think that?does this mean that it wasn't a controlled demolition after all?
Enter this site and click where it says, "Watch videos".
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
Controlled demolition is discussed in the videos.
This has been discussed ad nauseum. You're being deliberately ignorant.
I'm not wasting my time watching youtube.
Explain how the govt substituted the planes.
again, too much effort to watch another of these videos.What in those videos makes you think that?
Enter this site and click where it says, "Watch videos".
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
Controlled demolition is discussed in the videos.
Just explain in your own words what happened that day.
Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.
It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.
They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...24912447824934
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66640147&hl=en
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
http://wtc.nist.gov/
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.911myths.com/
Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/
Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU
Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.
9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.
http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html
A whole page of youtube debunking videosShabby, Self-Serving Internet Reports by Pseudo Journalists and Activists Cause Webb Family Grief - It's Time for Real Journalists and Activists to Shun Demagogues, Hysterics and Profiteers
by
Michael C. Ruppert
A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far.
Interesting point:
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-...-pentagon.html
Either the conspiracy theorists are right about a massive organized evil conspiracy, or they are wrong.
If they are right about 9-11 being planned by an evil government conspiracy willing and capable of killing thousand of their own citizens, they would be just as motivated to keep that fact a secret.
An easy method of doing this is to do a disinformation campaign. All it takes is one or two paid evil guys willing to lie, a computer and some time.
The best way to do such a disinformation campaign is, as the conspiracy theorists themselves point out in my previous post is as follows:
- Think of the stupidest shit possible
- Present it in such a blatantly false and easily debunked manner that anybody with any common sense at all would recognize it immediately as stupid bullshit
- This would then lead normal pepole to then associate all the real conspiracy evidence with this obvious quackery to discredit the whole movement to expose the grand evil conspiracy
IF there is a grand evil conspiracy, THEN at least SOME of the conspiracy "evidence" has been manufactured to be obviously stupid to put people off the trail.
THEREFORE:
IF the evil conspiracy exists AND you say you believe all of the conspiracy "evidence/theories" you MUST either:
1) Be one of those paid disinformation agents, and be lying and evil
or
2) Be too stupid to not recognize the obviously fake stuff that has been planted by the paid disinformation agents.
If there is no massive evil conspiracy then anybody who believes in ALL of the conspiracy theories is definitely too stupid to realize the conspiracy doesn't really exist.
Since no one can be part of something that doesn't exist, if you believe all the conspiracy theories/evidence, and the conspiracy doesn't exist you can't be lying and evil.
In either case it boils down to this:
If you say you believe in all of the conspiracy evidence, you MUST either be
1) A lying evil agent of the conspiracy
or
2) Too stupid to recognize obviously false information when you see it.
There are no other possibilities.
Which is it Cosmo? Are you stupid or evil?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-19-2010 at 10:53 AM.
http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html
What I Learned from
9-11 Conspiracy Theories.
- The U.S. is actually quite popular worldwide; so much so, in fact, that its government must create artificial terrorist organizations to attack it. Left to their own devices, everybody else pretty much respects Americans and leaves them alone.
- It takes the complacency or cooperation of the world's largest superpower to hijack a defenseless civilian aircraft.
- If you believe what your government tells you about 9-11, you are part of the conspiracy or, at least, part of "the problem." But if you accuse people at all levels of the government, including the U.S. military, of planning and carrying out the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, killing thousands of civilians, then you are a patriot.
- The large fireballs seen at the WTC impacts look like napalm explosions, so it was probably a napalm bomb that actually caused the damage. Of course, napalm being jellied fuel, and jet aircraft being full of fuel, you can see the vast difference there.
- The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.
- Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.
- Several of the hijackers are still alive, and apparently are living well.
The government planted explosives at the exact aircraft impact sites of the Pentagon and both WTC towers, the explosives and activity surrounding their placement went completely unnoticed, the rigging of the explosives was unharmed by the aircraft impacts, and they went off exactly when planned.
- Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.
- Those plane crashes were like so totally fake cuz they were so totally unlike all the real fiery passenger jet crashes into buildings I've seen in real life.
- When you refer to the planes, say "alleged aircraft." When referring to the terrorists, say "alleged terrorists." Because not only can we not be sure they even existed, but also, "alleged" has such a nice, objective ring to it.
- The plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers were an absurdity, like a cat-shaped hole in a fence in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, because the planes would have either smashed to pieces against the building and fallen straight down to the street below, or flown right through the building (making a cartoon-like hole) and emerged out the other side relatively intact.
- Cries of "Death to America!" and "America is the Great Satan!" by Islamic extremists are all part of our government's plan for world domination. Left to themselves, the so-called "extremists" are actually quite pleasant, simple folk (but very good actors).
- The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.
- The meandering directions of the hijacked aircrafts' flight paths were all part of well-planned routes, and not due to the terrorist pilots flying and navigating a large, real, multi-engine passenger jet for the first time.
- Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.
- A black helicopter was hovering over the WTC South Tower before, during, and after the crashes, and the floor that was on fire the most must have had barrels and barrels of a crude oil-diesel mixture that was remotely ignited to ensure a hiding place for the helicopter which is the only thing that could explain black sooty smoke coming from an office building filled with office supplies, and the people working on that floor didn't notice the barrels and barrels of oil and went about their daily routine, and nobody working security or janitorial in the building noticed black-suited men rolling barrels of crude oil on the elevators, all to hide the black helicopter because we all know what black helicopters do. Seriously!
- If a large, thin-skinned aircraft impacts the side of a thick concrete building at 400mph, and only small pieces of the aircraft are found outside on the lawn, then it's obvious the pieces were planted there, and a plane didn't crash at all.
- The shape of the Pentagon and the approach path of the aircraft are Illuminati symbols. 'Nuff said.
- Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.
- Because the shape of the impact holes in the WTC towers and the Pentagon don't match what I think the shape of the planes should be, then it must have been some other type of craft that did the damage, in spite of all of the eyewitness reports and physical evidence to the contrary. Which means that, since the alleged hijacked aircraft are, indeed, missing, and the passengers on said aircraft are, indeed, missing, then the government must have landed those passenger jets in secret somewhere, removed the people, killed them, dismembered them, sprinkled their remains around the crash sites somehow, and destroyed/hid the aircraft somewhere else. Masterful. Much more convincing than just actually crashing the planes into the buildings in the first place.
- The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.
- The images and other references of the WTC on pre-9-11 terrorism reports and books reveals a casual, open foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and in no way could possibly ever ever refer to the largest pre-9-11 foreign terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the 1993 WTC parking garage bombing.
- Of course, if the shadow government could pull off the 9-11 attacks, then plotting the 1993 WTC attack would have been child's play.
- Incompetence, being unprepared, not foreseeing events, rushed decisions, finger pointing, blame trading, and hysteria equal "conspiracy."
- More information only muddles "the truth:" The most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
- Of all the types of aircraft described by witnesses at the WTC and Pentagon, we should choose to believe only the ones that fit our theories, not the ones that describe actual planes that are missing that contained actual passengers who are missing and whose body parts and DNA were found at the crash sites and whose planes were tracked to impact.
- When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.
- When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.
- When pointing out how a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945, but the building easily survived and didn't collapse, we should disregard how much smaller the B-25 is than a 767, the amount of fuel that each contains, and that the ESB was constructed largely of concrete (like, say, the Pentagon).
- Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.
- The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.
- No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!
- Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.
- If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.
- Although a simple concrete barrier can sucker punch a dump truck to a dead stop and virtually atomize a fighter jet, we should expect the impact site of a passenger jet on the world's largest reinforced concrete building to be marked by a plane-shaped hole in the wall.
- When actor Charlie Sheen says that the U.S. government was behind the attacks, and that "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," we should believe him because he is a "highly credible public figure" who is a star on the current hit comedy show "Two and a Half Men." And his stammering, "The more you look at stuff, especially specific incidents, specific events, in or around the fateful day, it just-- it just raises a lot of questions" makes you realize just how articulate he is, and how Tom "You don't know...psychiatry--I do" Cruise could take debating pointers from him.
- Most of the WTC towers' exterior was glass; most of the Pentagon's exterior was thick concrete. Naturally, we should expect them to be affected by aircraft impacts the same way.
If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.
- When pointing out how the FAA rule allowing pilots to fly armed was rescinded two months before 9-11, we should ignore the fact that at the time, no pilots were taking advantage of the rule, and we should not jump to the conclusion that the repeal is any different than businesses or schools banning employees from carrying firearms.
- It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.
- If people aren't listening to my theories, then maybe shouting them in eye-searing hot pink will do the trick.
- Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.
- Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."
- If video is poor quality, or with low frame rates (like with a surveillance film), it must be fake.
- The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.
- Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" conspiracy, and don't get me started.
- George W. Bush is at once America's most deviously intelligent autocrat and its most stupidest president ever.
- When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.
- If I am on the faculty of a university, and I use the university's good name and my position in the university as a crutch to substantiate my claims of a 9-11 mega-conspiracy, expecting my learned colleagues to believe and support me, I will get a harsh dose of reality when I am slapped down to administrative leave as my continued employment at said university is reconsidered.
- 99.9% of the worlds top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.
- If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet.
- Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert.
- I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.
- Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.
- The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.
- "The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.
- The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.
- If I cave in to the majority and concede that the planes did, in fact, exist, then quibbling about the degrees of bank or impact angles or other meaningless trifles will somehow vindicate me.
- If other conspiracy theorists make claims that are later widely disbelieved even in the conspiracy theory community, then it's not that fellow conspiracy theorists are wrong, it's that it was sinister counter-intelligence trying to undermine the "9/11 truth movement" with claims so absurd that it compromises the efficacy of the whole. Seriously.
- Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.
- The 9-11 attacks and the related misinformation/propaganda campaign were designed by the government to precipitate the lingering war in Iraq, so that we could get thousands of our men and women killed and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed to make the U.S. more popular and make the current administration more popular, which has worked like a charm.
- The Pentagon fire owed much of its smoke to an emergency generator near the crash site that was remotely detonated, it's suspicious that an emergency generator would have a large extra fuel tank next to it, and the WTC was only made of steel and concrete, with little to no combustible materials inside like carpet, desks, electronics and electrical cables, cubicle walls, file cabinet contents, storage rooms, and pens.
- When an "earwitness" to the Flight 93 crash claims she didn't hear a crash, but instead heard "an explosion, like an atomic bomb," we should believe her, because of her experience discriminating between the sounds of large passenger jets hitting the ground at high speed and the detonation of atomic weapons.
- Cory Lidle's plane crash into an apartment building proves that the WTC should have survived a similar attack. Because although both planes were vastly different in size, mass, fuel load, and speed, and although the buildings were vastly different in structure, they both happened in New York City.
- It's somehow productive to pontificate ad nauseum about whether there was a napalm bomb, or a missile, or a pod, or a whatever, attached under a passenger jet, since we all know how much more explosive power would be added by attaching something like that to a civilian jet already full of thousands of pounds of fuel.
- It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that any web pages that poke fun at conspiracy theories are a part of the conspiracy itself. Surely no right-thinking person could doubt and preach against the conspiracies by their own free will.
- If I e-mail the author of a web site that pokes fun at my conspiracy theories, I will write masterfully persuasive arguments for several pages, taking an entire evening of my time, making the text flow juuust right, and when he gets the e-mail he will read it all and will naturally be persuaded to see the error of his ways. After seeing how much work I put into it, he wouldn't just delete it without reading past the first ranting line. He just wouldn't.
- People will see what they want to see, and believe what they want to believe. Because rubbing someone's face in their own absurd beliefs only makes them close their eyes tighter, the claims in this list will continue to be believed by many. To all others: May our future rest in your capable hands.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
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
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
