Real 9-11 Research

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

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?docid=-6243624912447824934

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?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/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.
f0vxc50xAbk

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


Shabby, 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 youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Interesting point:
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon.html

[RandomGuy]

Let the flaming begin. :hungry:

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 conpiracy 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 mouse/galileo/whoever?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.jod911.com/


PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[RandomGuy]

Kinetic energy is a 8th grade topic, hey RG, since were doing energy calculations, what was the potential energy of the collapsing segment of tower?


By potential energy, I assume Dan is talking about gravitational potential energy. This is the total amount of possible “falling” energy if you drop something from any given height.

For the uninitiated/casual observer, the likely thrust of Dan’s question is to steer the conversation to the debunked “pulverized concrete” theory (http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry), as the idiot who put that abomination of science/logic out into the interwebs started with potential energy, and tried to prove that the towers fell “too quickly” by assuming that all the concrete in the twin towers was powdered.

PE=mgh
m= mass
g= gravity, i.e. gravitational acceleration or 9.8 m/s
h= height

G is a constant, 9.8 m/s/s
H is a height of 80 stories of 3.65 meters or almost exactly 292 meters. Remember we will assume that the top thirty stories of a 110 story building start falling. 110-30=80

So now that we have g and h, we can plug them in thusly:

PE=m(9.8)(292) or PE=m2861 (rounding decimal down)

This means that, any object, if dropped from 292 meters and ignoring air friction, will hit the ground with a force of roughly 2800 times the mass.

Here is an important point. What is mass? What is weight?

Weight is a force. It is the amount of force required to hold an object of a certain mass stationary against the pull of gravity. (see Newtons third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion)) When you climb on a scale you are really measuring the amount of force required to hold you at equilibrium (motionless) against gravity.
Think about what this means. This means that an object falling from 292 meters will seem to strike the ground with a force or “weight” of 2800 times what it weighed when it was held stationary, 292 meters above the ground.

The ground will then absorb the falling energy and then hold the body at equilibrium again after that energy has been absorbed to hold that mass at equilibrium/rest.

Let’s do a quickie, common sense thought experiment to help understand what the “controlled demolition” theory is trying to say.

The controlled demolition theory rests on the following assumption: “the building was too strong to have collapsed from simple gravity”

Put another way “the building could easily absorb the energy of the falling section and not fully collapse”

Does this pass the common sense muster?

Let’s take an average guy off the street. He can hold a 100 pound bag over his head for a few minutes. Say he is balancing it on his head to make things simple. In terms of physics this means he is providing a force equal to gravity in order to hold this bag motionless.

This is what the lower 80 stories did for the upper 30 stories for 30 years before 9-11.

Now, one story is about 12.32 feet. The thirty floors started falling through the damaged sections, and at least one damaged, weakened floor gave way.

Take that bag away from our average guy and hold it 12.32 feet over his head. Now drop it on his head. What happens?

Ouch is right.

Let’s see how many pounds of force will be applied by that bag to the guy’s head.

KE is measured in joules. KE= ½* mass * velocity *velocity
First let’s convert to metric for ease of calculation.
Mass=45.36 kg http://manuelsweb.com/kg_lbs.htm
H = 12.32 feet = 3.65 meters http://www.saudia-online.com/conversion%20Table.htm
Ending velocity of bag= 8.45 meters/s http://tutor4physics.com/calculators.htm

KE= ½(45.36)(8.45)(8.45) = 1619 joules
Convert 1619 Joules back to food/pounds force a.k.a. weight = 598 http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm (http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/ccenrgy.htm)

For the controlled demolition theory to be correct the guy’s head must be able to apply almost 598 foot/pounds of force to stop the bag after such a fall.

Is this reasonable? I think we can safely, and without the possibility of jail time for seriously injuring some poor test subject, conclude that it is not.

Maybe “Galileo” would like to put this theory’s primary assumption to the test with a 100 bag of bullshit?

The original Galileo was actually instrumental in noting that the rate of falling objects is not dependant on mass http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smass.htm . Perhaps our modern, more retarded, version of the real scientist can contribute something to science and prove that his head can hold, even for a split second, an eleven hundred pound object.

Dan, or anyone else, please feel free to recheck my calculations here. I might have deliberately made a mistake just to see if you are really following along… ;)

[RandomGuy]

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.

[01Snake]

It's a fucking cover up! Didn't you hear what Rosie said? Jezzzuss

[PixelPusher]

I;d like to know where they get the "spooky conspiracy" soundtrack music for these vids. Is there website you can download them from (for a fee I'm assuming)?

[RandomGuy]

I;d like to know where they get the "spooky conspiracy" soundtrack music for these vids. Is there website you can download them from (for a fee I'm assuming)?


You gotta buy the t-shirt and they will send a free "conspiracy sound effects" CD.

[=RTM=]

you went through allot of research to post this. Maybe deep down inside you need all those links to silence the real truth, or better yet, your conscious............

[Extra Stout]

you went through allot of research to post this. Maybe deep down inside you need all those links to silence the real truth, or better yet, your conscious............
RG long ago accepted that Darth Vader is his father.

[=RTM=]

Due to photobucket being slow tonight my uploading of pics and videos may take longer than I had reported earlier. but the truth will be told tonight, and the truth will hopefully set many free from the toxic mind poisoning propaganda spewing from RandonGuy's keyboard.

[Nbadan]

Mouse your funny. Everytime you ask RG what happened to all the concrete from two 110 story towers, its best he could give you is, oh...I think I read that somewhere...

:lol

...but that's good enough for Chumpy

:lmao

[Nbadan]

Neither FEMA, NiST, nor the 9/11 Commission, has been willing to release the building plans of the twin towers. Without this, their scientific assesment of the collapse of these buildings has no scientific credibility. No respected scientific journal would accept a paper that specified that it's data would not be made available for independant assessment. Jet fuel - a 'cold burning' fuel - is a kerosine type substance. Under normal circumstances a kerosine fire of limited duration will not melt or significantly weaken steel. The fire in the South Tower burned intensely for only fifteen minutes. Most of the fuel from the impact in the South Tower was expended outside the building. The connecting steel girders and central core of 44 (47?) steel columns would act as a significant heat sink distributing heat away from the area of initial impact. Fire fighters on the scene in the South Tower reported that the fires they saw were controllable. The steel used in the collapsed WTC north and south towers could not have melted or weakened in the way alleged. It was allegedly graded ASTM E119 and was required to withstand temperatures around 2000F for several hours. These features are all significant scientific reasons to doubt the official explanation - or at least to require that the building plans be produced.

The central core of the building consisted of 44 (or was that 47?) steel columns wrapped in fireproofing insulation. They occupied 1/3 of the cross-sectional area of the building. That's a hell of a lot of steel, so we know the impact of the 767 did not significantly weaken the building structure. The official explanation explains the collapse of the buildings as a result of fire, not impact. Further, if the official account is correct then the floors fell away from the central core like records on a spindle. One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these circumstances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths. This has been taken by critics of the official account as evidence of a controlled demolition. Whether that's true or not, this is a further reason not to accept the official explananation under circumstances where they refuse to publish the building plans.

Further:

The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledged that NONE of the fire chiefs who gave evidence before the 9/11 Commision believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible due to the fires they saw on that day.

The north tower of the World Trade Center had experienced a previous fire. On February 11, 1975 there was a blaze that burnt out most of the eleventh floor over three hours. The firefighters there reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fires that occurred on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building.

The building itself was designed to survive the impact of a 707, a plane comparable to a 767.

The steel remains from the WTC collapses was hurriedly cleaned up and shipped off to China (by the same guys who cleaned up after the Oklahoma City bombing). Only 1% of the steel from all three towers was collected, yet no tests for explosive residues were carried out. Scientifically, this is unacceptable, especially in a criminal investigation.

[Nbadan]

Hey, look at this woman standing in the huge gaping hole where RG and Chumpy claim a fire hot enough to weaken iron was burning...

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Woman_in_NorthTower_3views.JPG

[ChumpDumper]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.

[txt msg]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.
:elephant




9-11 WAS FAKE! IT WAS FIXED!

G.W. BUSH PLANNED IT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Power Hour]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.


Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove but you don't see the steel burners melting or getting soft do you?
And what about all those kerosene heaters made from steel? how do they get hot and never seem to get soft or melt? Could it be the only thing that can melt steel is a blowtorch, a huge smelter like you see in the steel factories. or should I dare say the T word "thermite"?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove

[Extra Stout]

Mouse your funny. Everytime you ask RG what happened to all the concrete from two 110 story towers, its best he could give you is, oh...I think I read that somewhere...

:lol

...but that's good enough for Chumpy

:lmao
On the north tower, which experienced the lesser loading of the two towers because it was higher up, 2/3 of the concrete debris was recovered within the approximate footprint of the tower. The additional 1/3 either was recovered outside the footprint or was pulverized.

The loading on the 95th floor at the time of collapse was approximately 34 times the amount necessary to pulverize concrete (3.36 J/g vs. 0.1 J/g). On subsequent floors further down, the loading was higher.

[RandomGuy]

Mouse your funny. Everytime you ask RG what happened to all the concrete from two 110 story towers, its best he could give you is, oh...I think I read that somewhere...

:lol

...but that's good enough for Chumpy

:lmao


Gawd, dan, I used to have some small amount of respect for you, and that went right out the window. :depressed

If you really want to know, then dig into one or two of the debunking sites, and you will find it somewhere.
You will not do so, , nor will any other conspiranut because to do so would require you to question your assumptions, and that is something you share in common with yonivore, and all the other consservadrones. Yeah, you heard me. You and the rest of the conspiranuts are all in the same intellectual category with Yonivore, gtown, and all the others.

Different sides of the same coin. :depressed

You opine endlessly about "having an open mind" but when it comes right down to it, your minds are as closed as the ass-clowns of the Westburo Baptist Church. I can think of no more insulting association.

[RandomGuy]

The building itself was designed to survive the impact of a 707, a plane comparable to a 767..

(sigh)

Here is where the lies, distortion and ignorance come roaring in.

Cut and paste without fact check is the modus operendi.


IF Dan had not sucked up the entire thing without doing any critical thinking, he might have looked into this fact.

Let's finish the sentence here.


The building itself was designed to survive the impact of a 707, coming in for a landing moving about 200 mph and at the end of its flight path having used up most of its fuel, a plane comparable to a 767.This is contrasted to what actually happened that day when a fully fueled jet moving over twice as fast as was considered in the original design was used.
Oh by the way, did we mention that when you double the speed, the impact force goes up FOUR times?

Lie, spin, repeat.

Those little bolded parts get cast aside when the "truthers" start talking about this. If you look into a lot of what they say, you really find out just how much they have to leave out to make their stuff seem plausible, just as in the above example.

These fuckers are worse than the Bush administration.

[Nbadan]

Nice cropping Dan.

Now your claim is there was no fire at all.

Good show.


that's not a crop dumbass.

[RandomGuy]

if the official account is correct then the floors fell away from the central core like records on a spindle. .

False. Read the NIST report. The initial collapse mechanism actually depends on the floors remaining attached to the connectors at both ends.

[RandomGuy]

The north tower of the World Trade Center had experienced a previous fire. On February 11, 1975 there was a blaze that burnt out most of the eleventh floor over three hours. The firefighters there reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fires that occurred on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building.


Let's finish this sentence too.
The firefighters there reported it is as very intense - much hotter than the fires that occurred on 9/11 - but it still didn’t take down the building that was undamaged by the impact of a jetliner moving at 450mph, and had intact water and sprinkler systems.

[RandomGuy]

The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledged that NONE of the fire chiefs who gave evidence before the 9/11 Commision believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible due to the fires they saw on that day.

Because as we all know, fully fueled jetliners slamming into buildings are such a regular occurance in New York that any firefighter with more than a few years of experience knows exactly what to expect when this happens.

[RandomGuy]

Fire fighters on the scene in the South Tower reported that the fires they saw were controllable.

Fire fighters on the scene in the South Tower reported that the fires they saw in the only part of the lowest floor that they could access because of the impact damage were controllable.

[Nbadan]

Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove but you don't see the steel burners melting or getting soft do you?
And what about all those kerosene heaters made from steel? how do they get hot and never seem to get soft or melt? Could it be the only thing that can melt steel is a blowtorch, a huge smelter like you see in the steel factories. or should I dare say the T word "thermite"?

Exactly Mouse. Remember the pics from the Pentagon that showed a computer and a book completely free of any fire damage almost at the point of impact? Same thing happened at the WTC towers, the Jet fuel burned relatively quickly, even the FEMA report confirms this.

[RandomGuy]

Dan, these fuckers do the EXACT same thing as the Bush administration that you despise.

They give you only the half of the truth that supports their argument, and when that fails, they make shit up.

[Nbadan]

False. Read the NIST report. The initial collapse mechanism actually depends on the floors remaining attached to the connectors at both ends.

Yeah, you mean the NIST report which they won't release the building plans for so their assumptions can be scientifically confirmed?

[Nbadan]

Dan, these fuckers do the EXACT same thing as the Bush administration that you despise.

They give you only the half of the truth that supports their argument, and when that fails, they make shit up.

Why do you keep saying I am blaming all this on the Bush Administration?

I have never made such a statement.

[smeagol]

Why do you keep saying I am blaming all this on the Bush Administration?

I have never made such a statement.
There lies the problem. You have not told us what your theory is.

[RandomGuy]

Yes there was a fire, Just like the one on a gas stove but you don't see the steel burners melting or getting soft do you?
And what about all those kerosene heaters made from steel? how do they get hot and never seem to get soft or melt? Could it be the only thing that can melt steel is a blowtorch, a huge smelter like you see in the steel factories. or should I dare say the T word "thermite"?

If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

What is this noise?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you keep saying I am blaming all this on the Bush Administration?

I have never made such a statement.

I have not said that you blame the Bush administration. I am saying that the "truthers" pervasive use of half-truths to lie and mislead is exactly the same type of thing that this administration does on a daily basis.

I see both groups as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

[RandomGuy]

Exactly Mouse. Remember the pics from the Pentagon that showed a computer and a book completely free of any fire damage almost at the point of impact? Same thing happened at the WTC towers, the Jet fuel burned relatively quickly, even the FEMA report confirms this.

Because, as we all know, nothing else in modern office buildings is flammable. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

One would reasonably have expected that some portions of the massive central steel core would have remained standing in these circumstances. It didn't. All 44 columns were brought to the ground in - relatively speaking - small lengths.



PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[smeagol]

Dan, get the fuck out of this thread. You are need on the ">>the video [_] tells the truth!" thread.

We need your take regarding a picture of part of a AA fusilage with a burning Pentagon in the background.

If you need help, mouse can assist you.

Man up!

[Nbadan]

There lies the problem. You have not told us what your theory is.


As I've posted before, you don't prove a conspiracy theory, and that's all the official explaination is without scientific proof, wrong by trying to prove another theory right.

[RandomGuy]

Only 1% of the steel from all three towers was collected, yet no tests for explosive residues were carried out. Scientifically, this is unacceptable, especially in a criminal investigation.

Because the NIST did the same calculation of the force of the collapsing section, and it was just as obvious to them that the initial collapse had more than enough mechanical energy to collapse the building.

Why waste the money testing for something you won't find?

[Nbadan]

If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

What is this noise?

Ehhh...the WTC steel was much more heat resistant than your burner.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, look at this woman standing in the huge gaping hole where RG and Chumpy claim a fire hot enough to weaken iron was burning...

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Woman_in_NorthTower_3views.JPG

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.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

What is this noise?


Ehhh...the WTC steel was much more heat resistant than your burner.

That isn't the question I asked Dan.

Answer the question, if you know. If you don't know, then simply say so.

[smeagol]

As I've posted before, you don't prove a conspiracy theory, and that's all the official explaination is without scientific proof, wrong by trying to prove another theory right.


Pussy!

Now why don't you tell me what is the piece of debri Yoni posted on the other thread.

Planted? Photoshopped? What's your take, Oliver Stone?

[Nbadan]

Because, as we all know, nothing else in modern office buildings is flammable. :rolleyes

and how hot will office furniture sprayed with jet fuel get? 800? So please tell again, how did a fire on the top floors weaken the trusses on the lower floors again?

[Crookshanks]

RandomGuy - that was the funniest stuff I've read in a long time! What's scary is that so many people actually believe it to be the truth!

[RandomGuy]

and how hot will office furniture sprayed with jet fuel get? 800? So please tell again, how did a fire on the top floors weaken the trusses on the lower floors again?

If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

What is this noise?

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy - that was the funniest stuff I've read in a long time! What's scary is that so many people actually believe it to be the truth!

You're very welcome. I had the same pleasure reading it for the first time.

Go to the original author's website. The original is very extensively crosss-linked to TONS of illustrative websites.

[Nbadan]

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

there are much more scientific models than your simplified equation of KE and PE that prove that you are right ( i could link some, but you must be about a graduate student at physics or math to begin to understand them). However, once again these equations are based on assumptions on building structure that no one will release, and as a mathmatician, I really don't understand why.

I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did, but the collapse of Tower 7, nah, I've never bought any of the official stories, still don't. So we can waste our time argueing about 1 and 2, but we should be arguing about the merits of the official story when it comes to tower 7.

[Nbadan]

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.

You where the arguing that the fire was hot enough to melt or weaken steel, but yet this lady, bless her, had no trouble making her way to the edge of the building near the impact area.

[smeagol]

Dan, take a peek at the other thread, answer my question, and come back.

I beg you

[RandomGuy]

I have a theory of my own:

Conspiranuts generally suffer from low self esteem. This is what they do to make it seem like they have more status, and I mean that in the primate pecking-order kind of way, than they actually do.

That is part of what makes them so rabid and dishonest when it comes to actually presenting "evidence". If the evidence is wrong then so is their self-image as oppressed underdogs, rebels, and anti-heros.

Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modicum of intellectual self-identity.

This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.

It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.

It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.

On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.

I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."

My 2 cents.

Flame away, conspiranuts. Your pychological underpinnings are showing. :p:

[Nbadan]

I have a theory of my own:

Conspiranuts generally suffer from low self esteem. This is what they do to make it seem like they have more status, and I mean that in the primate pecking-order kind of way, than they actually do.

That is part of what makes them so rabid and dishonest when it comes to actually presenting "evidence". If the evidence is wrong then so is their self-image as oppressed underdogs, rebels, and anti-heros.

This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.

[RandomGuy]

This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.

The official story (NIST) offers a lot of scientific proof.

I would be willing to bet that you have never read it.

[RandomGuy]

This makes sense, since the official story is a conspiracy theory without scientific proof, still, I wouldn't dare generalize people based solely on their thoughts on 911.

I would.

In general this has been my experience. That's why you are something of an anomoly to me. From what I have seen, you are too smart for this crap.

That is what saddens me.

[RandomGuy]

If you have ever used an electric stove and listened to the burner after you turn it on, you will hear a creaking noise.

What is this noise?

Anyways, back to this question.

If you don't know, then simply say so, and we can continue, but please try to answer it.

[ChumpDumper]

I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it didThen why are you saying it couldn't have in this very thread using closely cropped, out of time context pictures of a section of the building that had no fire?

Make up your mind.

[Nbadan]

Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modicum of intellectual self-identity.

This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.

It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.

It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.

On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.

I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."

My 2 cents.

Sorry you’re taking this so personal RG. Physicists’ are sleuths; they simply take the data that is available at the time and form mathematical models based on assumptions. When you get new data available, like the leaking of architectural designs that prove the NIST and FEMA reports bogus, new assumptions have to be made, it would be easier if FEMA or NIST or some government agency released all the information they knew about the floor designs, core structure, steel frames, elevators, yada...yada...yada of Towers 1,2 and 7, but it's been 6 years almost and that still hasn’t happened, so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.

[RandomGuy]

Then why are you saying it couldn't have in this very thread using closely cropped, out of time context pictures of a section of the building that had no fire?

Make up your mind.

I tell you this stuff is like a religion.

Hyper-conservative christians do the exact same thing when you question little eccentricities in the bible. For them giving ONE inch means that they must actually start to question everything else, and that their faith in their holy books (or in this case websites) was mis-placed.

[johnsmith]

and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.


Is that like the "intellectual corner" you were in when you joked about the Virginia Tech student?

[RandomGuy]

Sorry you’re taking this so personal RG. Physicists’ are sleuths; they simply take the data that is available at the time and form mathematical models based on assumptions. When you get new data available, like the leaking of architectural designs that prove the NIST and FEMA reports bogus, new assumptions have to be made, it would be easier if FEMA or NIST or some government agency released all the information they knew about the floor designs, core structure, steel frames, elevators, yada...yada...yada of Towers 1,2 and 7, but it's been 6 years almost and that still hasn’t happened, so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.

I'm not taking this very personally, other than to be offended when CTer theory is so shaky that it insults my intelligence.

I DO hate it when people lie to me, and the CTer websites do exactly that. Not that our darling government hasn't done, and isn't doing the same, but this lot is as bad, if not worse than the GOP.

In your rush to hate this administration, you have sucked this stuff up. Dude, there are PLENTY of reasons that the people in charge are venal and evil without having to make shit up.

[ChumpDumper]

so for now, 911 and it's official explanation are nothing but a conspiracy theory and you’ve generalized yourself into a intellectual corner of your own making.The difference is we have a fairly complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks.

What do you have?

What is your complete working theory about the perpetrators, methods, motives and mechanisms involved in all aspects of all the 9/11 attacks?

Let's hear it.

[Nbadan]

DO hate it when people lie to me, and the CTer websites do exactly that. Not that our darling government hasn't done, and isn't doing the same, but this lot is as bad, if not worse than the GOP

Have you ever read a book on intelligence ops RG? Do you know what poison pills are?

[Nbadan]

In your rush to hate this administration, you have sucked this stuff up. Dude, there are PLENTY of reasons that the people in charge are venal and evil without having to make shit up.

No one is blaming the administration, well, except for Mouse. That's a straw man argument RG.

[RandomGuy]

No one is blaming the administration, well, except for Mouse. That's a straw man argument RG.

Heh, the very definition of a strawman argument is distoring someone elses beliefs.

In this case a strawman argument would be if I restated what YOU believed and distorted that.

This is simply me stating what I believe, namely that the CTer movement is as big of a bunch of liars as the Bush administration.

[Nbadan]

Heh, the very definition of a strawman argument is distoring someone elses beliefs.

In this case a strawman argument would be if I restated what YOU believed and distorted that.

This is simply me stating what I believe, namely that the CTer movement is as big of a bunch of liars as the Bush administration.

Yes, and it's much more intellectually honest to generalize everyone who does not believe what you believe as wackos, liers, and con-men.

[RandomGuy]

Have you ever read a book on intelligence ops RG? Do you know what poison pills are?

Actually, you are thinking of the phrase "poisoning the well", in which an effort is made from the inside of a movement to discredit that movement.

There is YOUR intellectual corner.

If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to do just that. Post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bullshit is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.

SO

If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?

How does mouse know?

IF there is a conspiracy, and someone like mouse believes the most outlandish, illogical crap and spreads that around, THEN either:

1) Mouse works for the conspiracy

or

2) Mouse is too stupid to tell reality from the fabricated fantasy of the infiltrators.

Which is it mouse? Evil or stupid?

[Extra Stout]

I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did

Liar.


Aluminun oxides aren't gonna cause steel beams to fail Chuck. There may have been some present from the planes, but it doesn't explain how thick steel girders appear to be cut in a angle caused by thermite in a controlled demolition.


Notice the beam directly behind the rescurer is cut at an angle. seemingly, some contend, by what is known by demolition experts as a thermite charge used to bring the building down at a known angle.


Look, I'm just saying that it would have taken days, if not weeks to get the needed mechinery to lift that type of weight, and the pic just do not support that, those firemen look like first-responders, and besides if they had already cleared that area there would be much less debris around the beam.
-------------------------------------------------

Let's look at other tall building fires:

Exhibit C:

Catastrophic fire, no collapse

I got 10 firemen on tape saying they heard a series of sequenced explosions before Towers 1 and 2 fell...who should i believe.......hmmmm....
-------------------------------------------------


No, free-fall would mean that there was catastrophic truss failure at all levels, a statistical impossibility.
-------------------------------------------------


No, when the building collapses the lowest point should be equal to the arc of the falling trusses, since that is the strongest part of any building, in any 911 video, you can see piles of debris that are expanding upward from what science says should be the lowest arc of collapse.
-------------------------------------------------


Anyway, back to the original point, in March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are also largely applicable to the South Tower.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.
-------------------------------------------------


That's the lower part of the trusses, and why it collapsed at all is a bigger mystery, but the top trusses collapsed with little to no resistance.
-------------------------------------------------


So then it collapsed like a tree...wait a minute...
-------------------------------------------------


Yeah, well, I'm getting tired of explaining how the official story to the towers collapse defied the laws of physics, yet all anyone offers me is answers that defy the laws of physics.
-------------------------------------------------


Yeah, the rescuers climbed over steaming hot debris and just happened to cut that beam in the same angle as a thermite charge. What an idiot.
-------------------------------------------------


You know nothing about building demotion. Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

Behold the power of thermite

Notice the color of the smoke? Ok....

Notice the smoke should be black if it is jetfuel (which would have burned quickly and extinguished itself from a lack of air supply and office furniture) this again is more consistant with the use of thermite.
-------------------------------------------------


So your going with the firemen-rescuers-heros, what ever you want to call them, bringing a arc-welder, likely running off a big gas tank, to a raging fire? Idiot.
-------------------------------------------------


Notice the difference at the cut points? the pic I posted shows evidence of a chemical reaction consistant with thermite hot enough to melt steel, the pics he posted do not.
-------------------------------------------------


Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.
-------------------------------------------------


Affect it's structural integrity how? Can it create a 'kink point'? yes, Would it explain the complete collapse of both towers? No.
-------------------------------------------------


Only at temps much higher than that generated by burning jet fuel. In fact, the jet fuel would have burned off very quickly, leaving only office furniture as the sole source of the fire. Not nearly hot enough.
-------------------------------------------------


I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Random explosions would not go off in a sequential manner as there is evidence on some 911 tapes, there would be one or two big explosions.
-------------------------------------------------


Depends on the size of the explosions used. Shape charges would. This would also explain why some debris was thrown much greater distance than the debris pile of both towers. The explosions would have expelled the debris vertically. I can show you evidence that this is exactly what happened.
-------------------------------------------------


It's resistance. The debris is not what matters, that's just a distraction by debunkers, the debris clearly starts falling well before the building core collapses and should fall first. What matters is the speed at which the central core of the building collapses because the trusses are bolted together and the law of conservation of motion states that this resistance would considerable slow the rate of decent. For those of you unlearned, this means that it would have been impossible for the buildings to fall at 10 seconds under any other condition than that presented by a artificial vacume, like bombs.
-------------------------------------------------

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?
-------------------------------------------------


It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.
-------------------------------------------------


hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?), white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...
-------------------------------------------------


Again, we are talking explosive power here. In order for that much concrete to turn to dust there had to be more explosive power than just the PE and KE generated by the collapse.
-------------------------------------------------


Hey mr. facts, what is the combustion temp and burn rate of jet fuel?
-------------------------------------------------


It's simple physics, if you can't see that then there is really no hope for you. As I have shown and you have failed to disprove, the inner core was the strongest part of the building. Even if some of the trusses near the point of impact did collapse on the inner core, the building would collapse like a tree, not down on itself.
-------------------------------------------------


Evidence of molten steel was found at the very base of the WTC towers, and is a matter of public record. Still the implications are clear: such a melting of a section of all the inner core box pillars is possible, using relatively simple technology. Such compounds could have been applied to the interior or the exterior of even the largest of these columns in a surreptitious manner, to accomplish the task of melting and collapse. The amount necessary for complete melting of a segment of even the largest box column was calculated, and found possible. Of course complete melting was not necessary to cause total truss failure: a lesser amount of a thermite-like compound could have been used to raise the temperature of the steel to a point where the columns would fail before melting, although some melting must have occurred to account for the steel pools.
-------------------------------------------------


The first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side. Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry. This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south.

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.
A "gravity collapse" does not suddenly turn into a large scale explosion and project matter in all directions, nor does it generate a siesmic spike. It takes energy to project matter upwards and outwards.
-------------------------------------------------


The entire 110 story structure weighed 500,000 tonnes and the plane hit between the 94th and 98th floors according to the FEMA report.

That's around 4545 tonnes per floor, if we take damage from the 90th floor upwards, that amounts to around 99090 tonnes traveling at 10m/s with an arrest in that velocity not long after, before a continuation of the collapse.

That's enough to pancake the building, however, it is not enough to create a "mushroom" effect, as the force is distributed over a wide area and what is being ejected is 30-700 micron particles of concrete. The gravitational energy, of a single tower, would be around 400,000 KWH, in excess of 1,400,000 KWH is required to produce particles of this magnitude.

That's 1,000,000 KWH of energy unaccounted for.

I have considered the "bicycle pump effect", where the collapsing matter compressed the interior atmosphere rapidly, causing it to super-heat and, thus, convert the 200,000+ gallons of water to steam and ejecting it out through the top, however, such an event would have blown out every window...it would be almost like a scene from the film "Independence Day". No such event occurs.

That tells us that compression from the top was not a factor. The ONLY thing that is left is a shockwave travelling from the bottom, to the top, in a HIGHLY directed fashion, with an estimated energy of around 1,000,000 KWH. This results in the "compression" of concrete to fine dust and the upwards thrust ejecting material 100m-200m into the air and pretty much in diameter also.

In addition to this, it was clearly reported on National TV, of the existance of not only a basement level explosion, but also, of secondary devices.
-------------------------------------------------


We have the model of Bazant and Zhou, which requires the majority of the 47 huge steel columns on a floor of each Tower to reach sustained temperatures of 800oC in order to buckle (not melt) — at the same time. But as we’ve seen, such temperatures are very difficult to reach while burning office materials, in these connected steel structures where the heat is wicked away by heat transport. (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 26) And then to reach the 800oC at the same time, well, no, this scenario is far too improbable.

So that approach was abandoned by FEMA in the next effort (FEMA, 2002). The FEMA team largely adopted the theory of Dr. Thomas Eager (Eager and Musso, 2001), which was also presented in the NOVA presentation “Why the Towers Fell” (NOVA, 2002). Instead of having the columns fail simultaneously, FEMA has floor pans in the Towers warp due to fires, and the floor connections to the vertical beams break, and these floor pans then fall down onto the floor pans below, initiating “progressive collapse” or pancaking of one floor pan on another. Very simple. But not so fast — what happens to the enormous core columns to which the floors were firmly attached? Why don’t these remain standing like a spindle with the floor pans falling down around them, since the connections are presumed to have broken away? This interconnected steel core is founded on bedrock (Manhattan schist). FEMA does not totally ignore the core:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased [no mention of the huge central core anymore!], they buckled at the bolted column splice connections and also collapsed.” (FEMA. 2002)

This approach finally fails to account for the observed collapse of the 47 interconnected core columns which are massive and designed to bear the weight of the buildings, and it has the striking weakness of requiring the connections of the floor pans to the vertical columns to break, both at the core and at the perimeter columns, more or less simultaneously.

That didn’t work out, so NIST goes back to the drawing board. They require that the connections of the floor pans to vertical columns do NOT fail (contrary to FEMA’s model), but rather that the floor pans “pull” with enormous force, sufficient to cause the perimeter columns to significantly pull in, leading to final failure (contrary to objections of ARUP Fire experts, discussed above). Also, NIST constructs a computer model — but realistic cases do not actually lead to building collapse. So they “adjust” inputs until the model finally shows collapse initiation for the most severe cases. The details of these “adjustments” are hidden from us, in their computerized hypotheticals, but “the hypothesis is saved.” NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse.

We are left without a compelling fire/damage model, unless one blindly accepts the NIST computer simulation while ignoring the model fire-tests, which I’m not willing to do. And none of the “official” models outlined above accounts for what happens to the buildings AFTER the building is “poised for collapse” (NIST, 2005, p. 142) — namely the rapid and symmetrical and complete (no tall-standing central core) collapses. Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. And they ignore the squibs seen ejected from floors far from where the jets hit — particularly seen in WTC 7 (where no jet hit at all). Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers?

Remarkably, the explosive demolition hypothesis accounts for all the available data rather easily. The core columns on lower floors are cut using explosives, near-simultaneously, along with explosives detonated up higher so that gravity acting on now-unsupported floors helps bring down the buildings quickly. The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs — really very standard stuff for demolition experts. Thermite (whose end product is molten iron) used on some of the steel beams readily accounts for the molten metal which then pooled beneath the rubble piles.
-------------------------------------------------


Your assuming that the top of the building came down in one huge load-bearing piece, which every video of the collapse shows not to be the case. The top part of the building crumbles into millions of little pieces many of which fall off the side as it hits the lower part of the towers that are still standing, other which are unexplainably shot hundreds of feet away from the footprints of both towers. This all requires huge amounts of energy, neither of which your calculations have accounted for, RG.
-------------------------------------------------


So tell me RG, how did each floor of all three towers meet the necessary temperature for simulaneous truss collapse? Otherwise, explain to me how the buildings all fell at free fall speed again?
-------------------------------------------------


The NIST report completely fails to deal with the important dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun!

To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors.

Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.

TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)

So, the bottom line is this:

The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!

Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading and the problem only gets worse!

I would therefore ask all of you sheeple story fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Nbadan
I have always said that the Tower 1 and 2 collapse could have happened just the way the official report says it did


Liar.

You're right about that stout. He would have had to have read the report to say such a thing. :lol

[RandomGuy]

By the by, here is how the official report plays out the initial collapse, essentially the same for both buildings based on my reading of the NIST report. Feel free to read the thing and correct this with a better understanding if you so choose.

Airliner impacts building. Collision injects fire and initial fuel into an office environment filled with other fuel, such as plastic, paper, and furniture, in addition to literally knocking the thin coating of spray on insulation from the structural steel. Simultaineous fires start in multiple floors of the building in wide sections of those floors, in addition to weakening the structure.

In the damaged sections, you have the remaining load bearing structure taking up the extra load from the portions that were destroyed from the collision.

Add to this extra load stress per column (both inner and outer), additional lateral (sideways) stresses are placed from expanding trusses exposed to heat. With the additional load, and weakened by fire, the hottest columns start exhibiting "plasticity" and begin to sag, pulling on the connecting floor, and pulling the face of the building inwards at the floor/wall joints.

Eventually, some part of the buildng gives way, and this instantly places more stress on the remaining structure, itself nearing limits of load/stress capacity. This results in a rather rapid collapse of nearby sections and simple physics do the rest.

Did the structural steel melt? No. You don't have to even get close to melting point to get loss of strength. Medieval blacksmiths didn't have near the ability to melt iron or steel, but could get it hot enough to work with hammer and anvil into swords, armor, horseshoes, and all manner of things.
Steel loses about 20% of its load bearing capacity at 300C, and some portions of the fires were hotter than that.

[RandomGuy]

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.

[RandomGuy]

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.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
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.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, 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 weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

[RandomGuy]

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

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

[RandomGuy]

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.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

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.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[RandomGuy]

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

[RandomGuy]

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[Nbadan]

Liar.

No, my history on this topic has always been consistant. Towers 1 and 2 could go either way, but Tower 7, 6 years laters is still without a viable scientific explaination.

[Nbadan]

You're right about that stout. He would have had to have read the report to say such a thing.

Generalizations don't help your argument RG, although I have to say, they seem to be very effective at arousing Stout and Chumpy.

[RandomGuy]

No, my history on this topic has always been consistant. Towers 1 and 2 could go either way, but Tower 7, 6 years laters is still without a viable scientific explaination.

(hint: see the post immediately before yours)

[RandomGuy]

Generalizations don't help your argument RG, although I have to say, they seem to be very effective at arousing Stout and Chumpy.

Ok, have you read the official report? If so, then I retract my sarcasm and fully apologize for asserting that you hadn't.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and it's much more intellectually honest to generalize everyone who does not believe what you believe as wackos, liers, and con-men.


I don't think they are liars because I don't agree with them.

I think they are liars because I have seen, with my own eyes, exactly how and when they have lied.

Their lies tend to take the form of distortions and half truths. Sound familiar?

While some of it may be honest mistakes, the intentional editing of a lot of material suggests otherwise.

[Nbadan]

I concur. In plane sight is particularly troubling.


This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Let the investigation begin, it's been 6 years

[Yonivore]

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event...
Think they've seen the photos and videos you've posted on here, Nutjob Dan?

[RandomGuy]

I concur. In plane sight is particularly troubling.



Let the investigation begin, it's been 6 years

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

[RandomGuy]

I concur. In plane sight is particularly troubling.

Let the investigation begin, it's been 6 years

By the way, in case you didn't notice most of the last two pages, all your moonbat questions have been answered. Logically. With science and stuff.

[Nbadan]

Did you completely miss this story RG or just conveniently forget?


http://infowars.net/pictures/mar07/280307blueprints.jpg

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower
Unseen documents show official investigations used flawed construction details


The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:


As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.

The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.

The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.

Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.

Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."

Linky (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/28/wtc-blueprints-leaked-by-whistleblower/?url=http%3A%2F%2Finfowars.net%2Farticles%2Fmarch2 007%2F280307blueprints.htm&frame=true)

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao are you trying to make an Alex Jones link seem more legit by sticking it in a netscape link?

[RandomGuy]

Oh-the-fuck-no you didn't.

Please tell me you didn't just post something from infowars.com.

:rolleyes

This is the same bunch who SWORE that Clinton was going to declare martial law when the millenium bug came around. :lmao

Do you have any corraberating evidence other than infowars?

Like what they actually base their assertions ON?

[RandomGuy]

Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings.

Actually the thickness of the columns is addressed in multiple places of the NIST report for a variety of reasons.

It is a tad beyond credible to suggest that the thickness of the columns was not considered even IF the exact dimensions were never given in the official report.

[RandomGuy]

Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

WTF?

They spend whole chapters going over how strong the core columns were and their importance in load bearing.

The ONLY way you can claim such a thing is to not have even LOOKED at the report, or you are using the "seemingly" to intentionally mislead.

[RandomGuy]

Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building.

That is just the FAQ.

Had I the capability of cutting and pasting form the PDF I would do so, but it is there in the report IF YOU READ IT.

[RandomGuy]

I also can't but help noticing that the CTers have fled to another thread.

I suppose that is to keep themselves from accidentally reading the truth... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I started another thread so they can post their full theories.

No takers so far.

[RandomGuy]

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445985

[RandomGuy]

I started another thread so they can post their full theories.

No takers so far.

Heh, you might as well just post a link to Infowars.com the unholy source of all evil.

I fully expect alex jones himself to topple over at an early age from an brain hemorrhage. That man is so uptight, that if you stuck a lump of coal...

[RandomGuy]

Bumpski.

Because it is better to have this at the top so I don't have to find it later.

[Nbadan]

the only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that these blueprints could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..

(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao


Oh my

[Extra Stout]

the only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that these blueprints could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..

(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!
Only a liar or an idiot would try to use architectural layout drawings to make a point about construction details.

[RandomGuy]

the only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that these blueprints could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..

(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!


I am very reasonably sure they are real.

What I question is whether or not the conclusions that are drawn from them are supported by the available evidence.

In this case, I highly doubt that the conclusions reached by the infowars article even come close to what can be substantiated by the evidence that they base their claims on.

It is a little bit like setting a ball on a basketball court on the surface of our planet and concluding that means it is proof positive that the sun is going around the earth because if the earth were really going around the sun, the ball should move.

The wild ass conclusion cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence.

Again, see the confirmation bias bit on wikipedia.

[RandomGuy]

That is actually the whole problem with the 9-11 "truth" movement in a nutshell.

The conclusions that they reach from available evidence aren't supported by that evidence.

Example:

Evidence: A building collapses.

Conclusion: It must have been explosive demolition.

Evidence: A horrible tragedy happens.

Conclusion: It MUST be part of an evil conspiracy's plan.


Although there are some (ok, a LOT of) verified cases of the 9-11 truth movement just making shit up, I generally try to treat each bit of evidence as valid until proven otherwise.

I DO differentiate between the validity and logicalness of conclusions drawn from evidence and the validity and logicalness of evidence itself.

[mookie2001]

it was part of some evil conspiracy plan, in your 911 Commission Report mind, did not Al Queda and these hijackers conspire to fly planes into the wtc?, and was it evil?

[RandomGuy]

it was part of some evil conspiracy plan, in your 911 Commission Report mind, did not Al Queda and these hijackers conspire to fly planes into the wtc?, and was it evil?

Ah, in that sense it was an evil conspiracy of Al Qaeda and anti-western reactionaries.

This is somewhat different than the "multi-generational" conspiracy of elites working on the perfection of control, mass-extermination of most of humanity, enslavement of the easily-controlled remainder, in which ALL things are part of this omnipotent plan.

Perhaps a better phrase would be "grand evil conspiracy".

[RandomGuy]

the only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that these blueprints could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..

(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!

By the way, this is one of the worst examples of rank hypocrisy I have ever seen.

Tell me Dan, did you accept the infowars assumptions on faith, or did you actually test any of their conclusions?

I will not let you get away with ignoring this question, so you might as well answer it.

Not that I can depend on you to answer it truthfully, but hey, I WILL get an answer eventually.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, this is one of the worst examples of rank hypocrisy I have ever seen.

Tell me Dan, did you accept the infowars assumptions on faith, or did you actually test any of their conclusions?

I will not let you get away with ignoring this question, so you might as well answer it.

Not that I can depend on you to answer it truthfully, but hey, I WILL get an answer eventually.

Still waitin on the answer, dan.

[Nbadan]

Only a liar or an idiot would try to use architectural layout drawings to make a point about construction details.

I do believe Stout has a crush on me

:eyebrows

[Nbadan]

In this case, I highly doubt that the conclusions reached by the infowars article even come close to what can be substantiated by the evidence that they base their claims on.

What evidence is that RG? Did they finally release the blueprints from both Towers so that their assumptions can be scientifically tested?

[Nbadan]

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities.'

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445985

I am trained in sciencebut my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts

:lmao

This monkey was trained in science too...


http://science.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/65767/scienceMonkey.jpg

[Nbadan]

By the way, this is one of the worst examples of rank hypocrisy I have ever seen.

Tell me Dan, did you accept the infowars assumptions on faith, or did you actually test any of their conclusions?

Did you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any documention released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Who's the real hypocrite here RG?

[SPARKY]

Nbadan is Alex Jones. Everything makes sense now.

[mookie2001]

Did you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any documention released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?thats what its all about

post of the year

dan just dumped on yall

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't seen anything more believeable on the whole.

If you've got it, please let us all in on it.

[Extra Stout]

nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?

More lying bullshit: "scrutiny of the scientific method."

Excuse me, has one of your websites had an engineering firm perform experiments trying to model the twin tower collapse? Have they published conclusions?

Has it been peer reviewed?

[Extra Stout]

I'm exactly the kind of simpleton liars like dan prey upon

[ChumpDumper]

Are there even any structural engineers in the "truth" movement? Would they even know how to read a blueprint?

[ChumpDumper]

September 15, 2001

"The Reflecting Wall at MIT," a 12-by-25-foot wooden replica of a fragment of the wall of the World Trade Center installed next to the MIT Chapel, was dedicated last Friday afternoon when 400 students, faculty and staff laid roses, candles and notes on the structure.

It was conceived as a temporary space where people may pause to reflect on the more than 5,000 people who died in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania after terrorists piloted hijacked airplanes.

The request for a temporary space for reflection was first voiced during the MIT-wide community meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 12 in Killian Court. It was translated into a proposal by a committee of staff and faculty in consultation with representatives of the undergraduate and graduate students. The committee was assisted by Helene Lipstadt, a visiting associate professor of architecture who studies monuments and their effects on people.

The committee and student representatives worked side by side with Assistant Professor of Architecture John Fernandez, who was studying the blueprints and structure of the 30-year-old buildings the day after the disaster.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/reflectingwall.html

So there's another guy that was in on it.

[Extra Stout]

The crux of the matter is that the conspiracy theorists believe that their armchair observations carry more weight than the technical judgments of large teams of qualified experts.

[ChumpDumper]

Even Oliver Stone is in on it!

Inside a flimsy temporary office on a dusty movie lot here, a young man sits in front of a computer, showing off a three-dimensional rendering of the collapse of the World Trade Center. It was assembled by merging the blueprints for the Twin Towers - the before-picture, you might say - with a vast collection of measurements, including some taken with infrared laser scans from an airplane 5,000 feet above New York, just days after 9/11.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/29/style/fmlede30.php

[ChumpDumper]

After seeing the newly released blueprints, I have to admit: I have completely changed my mind about 9/11. The proof is there in the core plans.

http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/5841/blueprintse0.jpg

[credit to some guy in another forum]

[mookie2001]

I believe in the 911 Commission Reportwe get it

[Cant_Be_Faded]

what is truely hilarious is how chumpdumper used to be borderline skeptical about all "official" stories regarding 9/11, then stayed quiet on it, and now is a full fledged author of the commission report, all within the course of like 2 years

[ChumpDumper]

what is truely hilarious is how chumpdumper used to be borderline skeptical about all "official" stories regarding 9/11Did I?
then stayed quiet on itI remember that part.
and now is a full fledged author of the commission report, all within the course of like 2 yearsAnd yet still doesn't like George W. Bush in the least.

It's possible to do both.

All you have to do is be in on the conspiracy, like I am.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, this is one of the worst examples of rank hypocrisy I have ever seen.

Tell me Dan, did you accept the infowars assumptions on faith, or did you actually test any of their conclusions?


Did you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any documention released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Who's the real hypocrite here RG?
DODGE.

Answer the question Dan. What assumptions in the infowars article did you accept on faith, and what ones did you test?

Do you even KNOW what assumptions were put forth by the infowars article?

STILL waitin' on the answer, dan. (two dodges so far, and counting)

Still waitin...

[RandomGuy]

I am trained in sciencebut my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts

:lmao

This monkey was trained in science too...


http://science.qj.net/uploads/articles_module/65767/scienceMonkey.jpg

Dammit, dan you are doing the exact same stupid shit that Yoni and gtown do. Sinking down to the level of the zealot.

Instead of addressing the material or the idea, you simply attack the person making the case.



Fallacy: Ad Hominem


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


If he is so far off base then it should be easy to see how he is wrong then.

Tell me how the material on the website is wrong Dan.

[RandomGuy]

Did you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any documentation released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Who's the real hypocrite here RG?

Funny you should ask.

If you actually read the NIST website, on their FAQ, they say that they didn't consider explosives because they did some initial modeling of the collapse that proved that there was enough simple mechanical/kinetic energy to completely collapse the building.

Being a curious sort, I decided to try and figure out how they did that.

Care to guess what I found by doing my own research?


PE = m x g x h

Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 foot section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

LOOK FAMILIAR?

[RandomGuy]

what is truely hilarious is how chumpdumper used to be borderline skeptical about all "official" stories regarding 9/11, then stayed quiet on it, and now is a full fledged author of the commission report, all within the course of like 2 years



Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

[RandomGuy]

Did you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any documention released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?

Who's the real hypocrite here RG?

The only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that the NIST report could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..

(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!

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."

[RandomGuy]

Ask these ass-clowns a few simple questions:

1) How much thermite would it take to sever the columns?

2) How many man hours would it require to set the thermite?

3) How was the thermite kept in contact with the steel long enough to melt it?

A few more inconvenient questions that can't be answered by the CTer version of things.

Remember they contend that the whole building , BOTH of them, i.e. 220 stories worth of building, came down in this manner.

Thermite takes a few minutes to work on THIN steel objects (it also tends to travel downwards due to gravity, as opposed to sideways through columns).

Considering the massive amount of steel columns (remember, they like to go on endlessly about the 47 core columns, not to mention the perimeter ones), that much steel melting would produce a LOT of heat.

Since they contend the steel MELTED, you are talking enough thermite to melt a LOT of steel.

Can they find evidence of the companies who make this stuff getting large orders for explosives in the months leading up to it?

I suppose the thousands of man hours used in setting thousands of charges in 220 stories of building was probably not volunteer work. Maybe they could find financial records that support this massive effort?

Or maybe they can point out why NO ONE noticed the massive labor effort and tons of materials moving into the buildings?

[Extra Stout]

Why are the CT's so focused on thermite in the first place? Wouldn't RDX charges do a better job of cutting through steel beams anyway?

[Extra Stout]

Are the CT's fixated on thermite because of Stephen Jones' paper?

Question: why would it be surprising to find residue of aluminum and oxides of iron following an incident where an aircraft made of aluminum crashed into a skyscraper made of steel and burned?

[Yonivore]

Question: why would it be surprising to find residue of aluminum and oxides of iron following an incident where an aircraft made of aluminum crashed into a skyscraper made of steel and burned?
Wow, that's a real conundrum, ain't it?

Could take years, decades even, to unravel that mystery...

[Extra Stout]

Why are the CT's so focused on thermite in the first place? Wouldn't RDX charges do a better job of cutting through steel beams anyway?


I better get to work copying and pasting a conspiracy theory claiming RDX charges blew up the WTC.

[RandomGuy]

Why are the CT's so focused on thermite in the first place? Wouldn't RDX charges do a better job of cutting through steel beams anyway?

The sulphur in the gypsum wallboarding caused them to think that sulphur was from thermite, I think.

Yeah, but RDX or similar explosives would have made MUCH bigger booms, and they couldn't find evidence of those booms, so it had to have been something a bit quieter, I think.

I'm sure they have SOME reason for fixating on it.

[RandomGuy]

Are the CT's fixated on thermite because of Stephen Jones' paper?

Question: why would it be surprising to find residue of aluminum and oxides of iron following an incident where an aircraft made of aluminum crashed into a skyscraper made of steel and burned?

Don't forget the facade of the towers also had a lot of aluminum, if memory serves.

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, but RDX or similar explosives would have made MUCH bigger booms, and they couldn't find evidence of those booms, so it had to have been something a bit quieter, I think.
So in other words, they developed a conclusion first, and then tried to figure out the contingency that best fits their preconceived conclusion?

Wow, that is so different from, say, creation science.

[Nbadan]

Don't forget the facade of the towers also had a lot of aluminum, if memory serves.

Aluminum melts at 800 degrees?

[Nbadan]

So in other words, they developed a conclusion first, and then tried to figure out the contingency that best fits their preconceived conclusion?

Wow, that is so different from, say, creation science.

ummm...but that's the NIST report in a nutshell. If fact, I've come up with a catchy name for those who buy the 'official story', who shall from here on be called the 'faith movement' for your unbridled faith into a report by a agency that won't release the data they used to form their calculations.

[ChumpDumper]

Aluminum melts at 800 degrees?Lower temperatures actually.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[ChumpDumper]

ummm...but that's the NIST report in a nutshell. If fact, I've come up with a catchy name for those who buy the 'official story', who shall from here on be called the 'faith movement' for your unbridled faith into a report by a agency that won't release the data they used to form their calculations.So, we'll call you guys Mouvement Sans Théories.

[Nbadan]

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Possible, but the sheer amount of molten material doesn't make it likely. Most likely was either Aluminum or steel.

[RandomGuy]

ummm...but that's the NIST report in a nutshell. If fact, I've come up with a catchy name for those who buy the 'official story', who shall from here on be called the 'faith movement' for your unbridled faith into a report by a agency that won't release the data they used to form their calculations.


You're right. I accept on faith that the thousand or so people that put this thing together knew a little bit about buildings, physics, and chemistry and aren't lying.

Silly me.

Whereas the CT movement has proven so much more reliable and honest...

[ChumpDumper]

Possible, but the sheer amount of molten material doesn't make it likely. Most likely was either Aluminum or steel.Uh, dan -- the quote says it's aluminum.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft.

[RandomGuy]

Possible, but the sheer amount of molten material doesn't make it likely. Most likely was either Aluminum or steel.

Given that aluminum was present in large quantities AND has a lower melting point, which is more probable?

[RandomGuy]

ummm...but that's the NIST report in a nutshell. If fact, I've come up with a catchy name for those who buy the 'official story', who shall from here on be called the 'faith movement' for your unbridled faith into a report by a agency that won't release the data they used to form their calculations.

They did release a lot of the data. It is in the report.

IF you had read it, you might know that.

[Nbadan]

The theory explaining the collapse mechanism (Bazant & Zhou) assumes that all columns on a floor were raised to 800º C. The behaviour of steel in fires is a complex mechanism. Steel columns would fail by gradual buckling. The fires did not cover an entire floor area in either tower. The maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating is 825º C (1517º F). The melting point of steel is 1535º C (2795º F). Even assuming that the fires reached a temperature to produce a gradual reduction in the steel’s (compressive & tensile) strength at temperatures up to the melting point, the mode of collapse initiation and free-fall of the whole structure would not fit in with this explanation. There would have been a gradual toppling/leaning of the structure towards the elevation where the fires (temperatures) were hottest. The collapse initiation did not indicate this. In fact, there are moving picture images showing steel beams that were projected horizontally out from the building as the floors collapsed.


http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/ndocs/tower2_exp1.jpg

[RandomGuy]

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.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

[RandomGuy]

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.

[Nbadan]

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.

See, my whole issue with the NIST report is it treats each building as a box, of course, each building had 47 center re-enforced trusses.

[Nbadan]

owever, 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.

In which case the steel would buckle and bend causing the building to topple over at the point where the beams became compromised, like a tree.

[RandomGuy]

See, my whole issue with the NIST report is it treats each building as a box, of course, each building had 47 center re-enforced trusses.

47 steel reinforced trusses that could have supported how much mass?

[Nbadan]

47 steel reinforced trusses that could have supported how much mass?

that would depend on how many of them were compromised in the initial impact. The fact that Tower 2 collapsed first, even though it did not appear to suffer a direct impact on the center trusses is a scientific conundrum.

[ChumpDumper]

In which case the steel would buckle and bend causing the building to topple over at the point where the beams became compromised, like a tree.Which it did, then gravity's pull on several acres of office building did the rest.

[RandomGuy]

that would depend on how many of them were compromised in the initial impact. The fact that Tower 2 collapsed first, even though it did not appear to suffer a direct impact on the center trusses is a scientific conundrum.

If you read the NIST report, you would know why. It's in there, I promise.

[RandomGuy]

that would depend on how many of them were compromised in the initial impact. The fact that Tower 2 collapsed first, even though it did not appear to suffer a direct impact on the center trusses is a scientific conundrum.

The NIST report addresses this.

Basically, the second building was hit a bit farther down, meaning the damaged section had to support more weight, and the way the airliner hit affected the fires somewhat.

Read the NIST report, and they explain it in MUCH more detail.

[Nbadan]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.

[Extra Stout]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.
Err... they did release all their data. It's in the technical support documents on the freaking website.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Have at it.

[Extra Stout]

Dammit.

[RandomGuy]

Err... they did release all their data. It's in the technical support documents on the freaking website.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Have at it.

CTers bitch that other people don't read their websites because everyone else has closed minds, but when it comes to reading the NIST report, not reading it is ok.

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.

Draft report on project 1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems
(Note: Reports are presented in .pdf and may require the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download or update Adobe Acrobat Reader free.)

Executive Summary
Full Report (275 pgs.)
Draft supporting technical reports
Design and Construction of Structural Systems (Appendices)
Comparison of Building Code Structural Requirements
Maintenance and Modifications to Structural Systems (Appendices)
Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions Applied to the Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 and Post-Construction Provisions Applied after Occupancy
Comparison of Codes, Standards, and Practices in Use at the Time of Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7
Comparison of 1968 and Current (2003) New York City Building Code Provisions
Amendments to the Fire Protection and Life Safety Provisions of the New York City Building Code by Local Laws Adopted while World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Were in Use
Post-Construction Modifications to Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems of the World Trade Center Towers
Post-Construction Modifications to Fire Protection, Life Safety, and Structural Systems of World Trade Center 7
Documentation of the Fuel System for Emergency Power in World Trade Center 7

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.

Draft report on project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers (Note: Reports are presented in .pdf and may require the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download or update Adobe Acrobat Reader free.)

Executive Summary
Full Report (458 pgs.)
Draft supporting technical reports

Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers (Appendices)
Chapters 1-8
Chapters 9-11

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.


Draft report on project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel (Note: Reports are presented in .pdf and may require the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download or update Adobe Acrobat Reader free.)

Executive Summary
Full Report (184 pgs.)
Draft supporting technical reports

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
Steel Inventory and Identification
Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components (Appendices)
Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
Physical Properties of Structural Steels

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.

Draft report on project 4: Active Fire Protection Systems (Note: Reports are presented in .pdf and may require the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download or update Adobe Acrobat Reader free.)

Executive Summary
Full Report (138 pgs.)
Draft supporting technical reports
Post-Construction Fires prior to September 11, 2001
Fire Suppression Systems
Fire Alarm Systems
Smoke Management Systems

[RandomGuy]

The NIST report is speculation. Let them release all their data so that their calculations can be scientifically duplicated.
Draft report on project 5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (Note: Reports are presented in .pdf and may require the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download or update Adobe Acrobat Reader free.)

Executive Summary
Full Report (238 pgs.) (Appendixes)
Draft supporting technical reports
Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis
Chapters 1-8
Chapter 9-Appendices
Experiments and Modeling of Structural Steel Elements Exposed to Fire
Fire Tests of Single Office Workstations
Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks
Experiments and Modeling of Multiple Workstations Burning in a Compartment
Computer Simulation of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers
Fire Structure Interface and Thermal Response of the World Trade Center Towers

[RandomGuy]

I think I have made my point.

Dan, this entire thesis of controlled demolition is based on quackery, and scientific ignorance.

I have no doubt that you, mouse, et al. will keep your closed minds and refuse to even consider this possibility, but it is there for everybody else to see.

[RandomGuy]

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."

[Nbadan]

The fire and smoke behavior were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) software developed by NIST.

They wrote their own simulation program.

:lmao

[Nbadan]

Err... they did release all their data. It's in the technical support documents on the freaking website.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Have at it.


Where are the building blue-prints showing the trusses? Liar.

[Nbadan]

NIST's Working Hypothesis for Collapse of the WTC Towers

Even NISt calls it a working hypothesis, but to those in the 911 faith movement, it's fact.

[ChumpDumper]

They wrote their own simulation program.

:lmaoWhose simulation program did you use?

[johnsmith]

Even NISt calls it a working hypothesis, but to those in the 911 faith movement, it's fact.


I absolutely love when you call it the "faith movement". As if to say that conspiracy theorists are in the majority.

Good stuff jackass.

[Extra Stout]

Where are the building blue-prints showing the trusses? Liar.
Contact the Port Authority of New York.

[RandomGuy]

Where are the building blue-prints showing the trusses? Liar.

Have you actually read the link there?

Didn't think so.

Lazy.

[RandomGuy]

They wrote their own simulation program.

:lmao

Yeah, the NIST never has to investigate other fires, and as we all know you can just saunter down to Walmart and buy the Quickbooks Pro with the fire simulation bonus package.

How many fire experts did the Infowars.com simulation program consult when they wrote THEIR software?

:lmao

[RandomGuy]

Even NISt calls it a working hypothesis, but to those in the 911 faith movement, it's fact.

(shrugs)

...and yet it is a working hypothesis arrived at by literally hundreds of people who are acknowledged experts in their fields that have direct knowledge of fires, structural engineering, physics, chemistry, and a host of other scientific disciplines.

Your "working hypothesis" is supported by who? Mouse? You?

Sorry if I put more weight on the former hypothesis than the latter.

You have proven that you can't be trusted to tell the truth.

Mouse has proven that HE can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I have seen so many other lies out of the "truth" movement, that I really have to require a HIGH level of proof and apply a great deal of skepticism to their claims and assertions. They have never failed to disappoint.

[RandomGuy]

Some Eyewitness Accounts of the WTC 7 Fires

Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the loca-tion of the fire within the building. [The alarm had been set to “test” mode due to maintenance work] http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf (pg28)

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the com-mand post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now peo-ple were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that build-ing and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's go-ing on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B sur-vivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

[RandomGuy]

For example, in this rambling defense of his theories, Jones cites an EPA report by Erik Swartz as evidence of the presence of thermite at the WTC: “Large amounts of 1,3 diphenylpropane strongly suggests the high-tech thermite arson used on the WTC buildings...” (bolding mine).
Swartz’s EPA report says nothing of the kind:
One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers. http://tinyurl.com/rp7xg The report abstract is here: http://tinyurl.com/qvzd7
In it, Swartz says, “In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl) bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been re-ported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”

[RandomGuy]

Steven Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (thermite with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is baseless. Jones found some sulfur and other trace metals, and nothing could be less surprising. Sulfur-based drywall was the third most-used construction material at the WTC. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil containing sulfur was spilled beneath the rubble piles, along with numerous other sulfur-containing inflammables. Thermate typically contains only 2% sulfur, so if the sulfur Jones detected was from thermate, we would expect to see the re-action byproducts of its main ingredients, iron oxide, aluminum, and barium nitrate, in proportionally greater amounts. The qualitative chemical analyses performed on sulfidated steel from WTC 7, 1, and 2 shows no signs of the presence of the incendiaries Jones says were used. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

[RandomGuy]

An excellent paper by chemist Frank Greening discusses sources of sulfur at the WTC site and examines the sulfidation observed in some steel found in the debris pile: http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
A common CT claim is that the angled column in the photo below is evidence of a cut made by thermite / thermate. Until recently this photo was prominently featured on the “Scholars for Truth” website and in Steven Jones’ papers. It still is featured on the page of another website promoting a debate challenge by the Scholars on teamliberty.net ( I have accepted the debate challenge, and as of this writing the debate the de-bate may be moved to my alma mater, Franklin Pierce College in New Hampshire.)

[RandomGuy]

Therefore, to attack a thick vertical steel column with thermite, a large, complex, and extremely durable (capable of withstanding temperatures of 4000 F) apparatus would have to be attached to each column to hold the thermite against the steel throughout the cutting process. And equally durable ignition de-vices (timers / wiring / radio receivers: take your pick) would need to survive the aircraft impacts/debris impacts and raging fires, and work perfectly when needed.
The huge thermite/ate devices would have to be attached to many columns, for redundancy, because the “conspirators” would not know exactly where the planes or debris would hit. Obviously, it would be highly suspicious if the building collapses initiated in an undamaged area.
Needless to say, no such devices were found in the 1.6 billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted by FBI investigators and NYPD detectives at Fresh Kills Landfill, and no evidence of ther-mite/ate use at the WTC has ever been found. Professor Jones simply ignores the many possible sources of the trace chemicals he found on steel, and he neglects to mention that he did not find traces of some of the most common byproducts of thermite/ate. Nor does he have a chain of custody for this steel that would rule out other sources of contamination.

[RandomGuy]

Molten metal in the basement was caused by demolitions materials?

There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. CTs often call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown. Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after the collapses showed tem-peratures near the surface of up to 1375 F: hot enough to melt aluminum. It was at least that hot at points within the pile that were away from the hottest zones. William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Un-building the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:
Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ulti-mately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and inte-riors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels.
I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on the car wheels. It was simply that hot

The presence of molten metals is not an indication of planned demolition work. Explosives do not produce pools of molten metal, and incendiaries like thermite burn themselves out in seconds even in the absence of oxygen and would not be available for weeks as fuel. A long-lasting source of fuel was available within the well-insulated piles: the contents of the buildings.
NIST weighs in on the “Molten steel” question:
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt

[RandomGuy]

The “No modern steel skyscraper” argument
“But wait a minute!” cry the CTs. “Before 9/11, no modern steel-framed skyscraper had ever completely collapsed due to fire!”
To which I reply: every modern steel-framed skyscraper that was subjected to these conditions has com-pletely collapsed:
 Severe structural damage.
 Damage to the thermal protection on its structural steel.
 Enormous uncontrolled fires on multiple floors.
According to NIST, those are the three interdependent reasons that the Twin Towers collapsed. If any one of the three conditions didn’t exist, NIST says that the towers probably wouldn’t have fallen. As mentioned earlier, NIST’s final report on WTC 7 is due out in 2007.

[RandomGuy]

The REAL research goes ON and ON and ON and ON about the lies of the 9-11 "truth" movement.

At every turn they either are either unintentially wrong or outright lying about half of what they say, and distorting the other half in misleading ways.

[xrayzebra]

Why doesn't someone just combine all these threads into one
and give the rest of us a break.

[Nbadan]

I absolutely love when you call it the "faith movement". As if to say that conspiracy theorists are in the majority.

Good stuff jackass.

:lol

Alternative theory believers do outnumber faith movement believers. Read a paper that not the NY Post, stop cruising Drudge, and quit listening to FAUX News.

[Nbadan]

his signal did not contain any specific information about the loca-tion of the fire within the building. [The alarm had been set to “test” mode due to maintenance work]

:sleep

[Extra Stout]

:lol

Alternative theory believers do outnumber faith movement believers. Read a paper that not the NY Post, stop cruising Drudge, and quit listening to FAUX News.
84% > 16%.

[ChumpDumper]

What alternative theory?

[mookie2001]

alternative to the 9/11 commission report

[ChumpDumper]

Oh yeah, the theory with no suspects, no motive, no evidence and no plan.

[mookie2001]

youre the one who calls them conspiracy theorists

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I call them conspiracy nontheorists.

[RandomGuy]

:lol

Alternative theory believers do outnumber faith movement believers. Read a paper that not the NY Post, stop cruising Drudge, and quit listening to FAUX News.


Oh yeah, infowars.com is a MUCH more reliable source. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

:sleep

I notice that you don't have jack shit to say about the rest of it.

Thought so.

[RandomGuy]

This thread ain't going away either.

[RandomGuy]

Still not going away. Bump.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of trying to explain the technical truth to the stupid conspiracy believers. I have done so other places as well. The physics is sound. The combined structural damage and heat brought the three buildings down. Heat alone wouldn't, and structural damage alone wouldn't. Both combined, the straws that broke the camels back.

Nuff said from me on this.

I will watch and make mental notes of all you Kool-Aid drinking idiots. You all make me laugh with pity.

[PixelPusher]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of trying to explain the technical truth to the stupid conspiracy believers. I have done so other places as well. The physics is sound. The combined structural damage and heat brought the three buildings down. Heat alone wouldn't, and structural damage alone wouldn't. Both combined, the straws that broke the camels back.

Nuff said from me on this.

I will watch and make mental notes of all you Kool-Aid drinking idiots. You all make me laugh with pity.
It all makes perfect sense if you play the footage in slow motion with spooky, conspiracy music in the background.

[Nbadan]

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt

There's a video of molten metal leaking from a window prior to collapse, and it's not just a little metal either. NIST should have stuck with the 911 faith-movement's theory of motlen battery alloys. Contrary to what Chump says, the fire in the building was not hot enough to melt the Aluminum shell of the plane.

[ChumpDumper]

Contrary to what Chump says, the fire in the building was not hot enough to melt the Aluminum shell of the plane.:lol did you have a thermometer up there? There is plenty of evidence to suggest any office fire could get that hot.

Also, if the central core is the main structural compnent that needs to be taken out in a controlled demolition using thremite to melt it, why would the molten steel be seen coming out of a window at least 35 feet and as much as 60 feet away from the core? Wouldn't it just run down the core melting everything in its path?

Of course it would.

Now, considering where aluminum alloys were definitely present after the impact, wouldn't it make more sense that some alloys melted by the fires and made to glow by oxides and other debris could pool and flow over the steel that was deforming but not melting and even out a window?

Of course it would.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

make way for conspiracy central.

[mookie2001]

if yalls explanations make so much sense, why dont some of these debunking experts- LET THE FEDERAL government know what they think






so they can give us an official story that actually mentions the damage from the planes, the fires, melting, structural integrity, and collapse

unlike the 9/11 commission report

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know why you put so much emphasis on one political and politicized report. I have and still agree with you that the commission report is incomplete; we only differ in your opinions why it is so.

[xrayzebra]

I don't know why you put so much emphasis on one political and politicized report. I have and still agree with you that the commission report is incomplete; we only differ in your opinions why it is so.

You might want to ask Sandy and the Clinton crowd about
that. But don't hold your breath waiting for an answer
unless blue is your favorite color.

[mookie2001]

well I put emphasis on it because it is the OFFICIAL story of what happened, after such a large scale investigation, i would think they would actually mention
the damage from the planes, the fires, melting, structural integrity, and collapse

i think thats most important part as far as alternative theories go

[ChumpDumper]

You might want to ask Sandy and the Clinton crowd about
that. But don't hold your breath waiting for an answer
unless blue is your favorite color.I have many more questions for the Bush administration. The Clinton administration's attitude and actions pre 9/11 are much better explained than that of Bush.

[ChumpDumper]

well I put emphasis on it because it is the OFFICIAL story of what happened, after such a large scale investigation, i would think they would actually mention

i think thats most important part as far as alternative theories goSince they didn't give a crap about any alternative theories, why would the commission waste time on them?

[mookie2001]

wasting time by telling the american people how and why so many died?

[ChumpDumper]

wasting time by telling the american people how and why so many died?Using alternative theories?

[mookie2001]

what the fuck are you talking about?

give us A theory about damage, planes, fires, melting steel, structure, collapse


they didnt mention any of that in the report


what does alternative have to do with anything?

[ChumpDumper]

Why did the commission need to do that? I think it's much more important to find out what happened before to make the attacks possible. Of course I think Islamic extremists did it by flying planes into buildings that burned and collapsed. I don't need a bunch of politicians telling me a scientific treatise on the mechanics and physics of the event. There are other reports for that. Just because they weren't published under one cover isn't that big a deal to me.

[mookie2001]

Why did the commission need to do that?

because its the official report of the events of september 11th, without that, we just have a bunch of marriotts on the internets wasting their time on both sides

[ChumpDumper]

because its the official report of the events of september 11thNot the only one.

[clambake]

what the fuck are you talking about?

give us A theory about damage, planes, fires, melting steel, structure, collapse


they didnt mention any of that in the report


what does alternative have to do with anything?
if you're not satisfied, why don't you (and others) explain your theories of what actually occured at the WTC. Then explain what brought you to that conclusion.

I'd like to hear them.

[mookie2001]

not my job

im not the federal gov, who formed a commission, spent millions and released a FINAL report on the terroist attacks on the US

[Nbadan]

Oh, no...........not this again....

911 Faith Movement versus Alternative theorists PART IIZ

[mookie2001]

but i think some unidentified arab men from terrorist organization xyz hijacked planes and flew them into the wtcs

beyond that controlled demolition seems likely






but without ANY official story regarding the plane damage, fires, melting, structure and collapse, ANY theory ANYONE has is an alternative one

[mookie2001]

of course chumpdumper said they were indentifed, just not by their names or dates of birth

[Spurminator]

Unless I'm mistaken, this particular report was never about determining whether the buildings collapsed as a result of planes crashing into them. It was about summarizing events leading up to the attack and failures along the way.

Had they anticipated just how many people would buy into the idea that there were other sinister objectives being carried out, they might have put more efforts into those details.

[mookie2001]

entitled"final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the US"

[Nbadan]

Just to catch you up.....the (second version) NIST report on WT7 still hasn't been released....the FEMA report pancake theory on WT1 and WT2 have been repeatedly depunked....

[smeagol]

If you have not read the report, you cannot opine.

I will keep my trap shut.

[ChumpDumper]

Just to catch you up.....the (second version) NIST report on WT7 still hasn't been released....the FEMA report pancake theory on WT1 and WT2 have been repeatedly depunked....And your theory hasn't been posted yet.

[ChumpDumper]

entitled"final report of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the US"It is the final report of that commission. You expected them to run on indefinitely?

[ChumpDumper]

of course chumpdumper said they were indentifed, just not by their names or dates of birthWe've been over this. Again, read Perfect Soldiers if you really care that much. You can buy a copy for $1.99 online.

[mookie2001]

no i want an open investigation like ive said dozens of times

focusing on the damage from aircrafts, fires, melting steel, structure, collapse and building 7-the things omitted

because the report is complete bullshit

[mookie2001]

so in perfect soldiers it tells the real names and birthdates of the hijackers?

[Nbadan]

...I think what you'd really find is that no only could have the administration known from intelligence sources that already existed and possibly, no make that, likely, spoiled the plot, they should have known.......

[ChumpDumper]

so in perfect soldiers it tells the real names and birthdates of the hijackers?
Here is a little exchange between familiar parties half a year ago:


what are you talking about? who knows what responsibility he had?, yeah he was a terrorist, head of al queda, he was also a known cia operative, they dont even know the identities of the hijackers


also


I NEVER SAID WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACKS, ever in any thread


If you are curious about the hijackers, I invite you to listen to reporter Terry McDermott, who spent quite a bit of time researching their lives.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630481

You don't even have to read....

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1570391&postcount=23

It is obvious you really don't give that much of a shit about any of this, so I don't understand why you keep acting like you do.

[mookie2001]

notes from NPR interview


----------------------
he traveled

men

a politcal

extremist

la times

atta

flight 11

egypt-germany

no mosque

jihad


friends

talking

these guys

volunteers

KSM

obl 96

pakistan

kuwait

NC

afghanistan fight soviets/funded, trained and armed by the US

bombs

missle planes

modern terror

pilots

targets

suicide

2 saudi 2 yemenies

asia

US

visa problems

pilots

1999

training camps AQ

khandahar

spoke english

german

flight schools

saudi pilot

hamburg

atta meeting

atta cap and gown

mommas sick

dont drop out son

get a PHD

landlord

dont like media

im terry im special

cant get the names because german laws

im lucky

i found a house

we formed a crew

gave him a card

we're stupid

file

laidback beer drinker

roommates

they didnt sleep in the same bed

he didnt wash dishes

boiled taters and ATE THEM

ate more taters

average people

al shahee?

gave candy to kids

one hijacker GOT MARRIED

zia jarah?

groundbreaking info, they wanted to die for jihad

500 people

arab myth US is smart

newspapers

i still fly

im secular

i wrote a book

----------------------

so in his book he gives the real names and dobs of the hijackers or not?
and if he did, why cant he tell the FBI

[ChumpDumper]

I'm really failing to see where you are going with this. This guy worked for three years, went to over 20 countries and interviewed over 500 people. Did HE say anything about doubting the actual identities of the hijackers?

No, he didn't.

Maybe you can tell me the particulars of the research of the person who originated your pet theory (whatever it actually is). How many years did he research it? How many countries did he visit? How many people did he interview?

[mookie2001]

4th time

in the book, that youve read, does he give (what he thinks) are the real names and DOBs of the hijackers?

and why doesnt he tell the FBI?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't have the book on me right now; I do remember names and dates but that was not the sole purpose of the book. Again, what is the significance of this question?

[mookie2001]

because youre saying im wrong when i say these arab men are unidentified


the info could be helpful to the FBI, I dont think they have such informative

it could also help in IDing future terrorists

[ChumpDumper]

because youre trying to say im wrong when i say these arab men are unidentifiedThey certainly have been identified to my satisfaction. If nothing short of "CSI" certainty and full DNA profiles are what you're looking for, no one and no thing is ever going to satisfy you.

Now, what is your theory about the "unidentified" hijackers?

[mookie2001]

DNA??

what about names and birthdates?

my theory is that they are unidentified
if they had been IDed you and 10 other people would have linked to something more concrete than an audio file in which some guy named terry talks about boiled potatoes

[ChumpDumper]

my theory is that they are unidentifiedAnd? Mine is they are identified.


if they had been IDed you and 10 other people would have linked to something more concrete than an audio file in which some guy named terry talks about boiled potatoesRead the fucking book. Or do the same research McDermott did so you can actually have enough cred to scoff him. See you in three years.

[mookie2001]

then we're back to where we started

post 223, this thread

chumpdumper says they were identified, just not by names or dates of birth

[ChumpDumper]

I believe several were so identified names and dates of birth.

What theory of yours is based on your belief none of them were identified?

[Nbadan]

I think he may be alluding to M.E. reports that many of the alleged 911 hijackers were still found to be alive after the attacks...

[ChumpDumper]

I think he may be alluding to M.E. reports that many of the alleged 911 hijackers were still found to be alive after the attacks...If I Google my name I get a children's author. If I do more research, I find me.

[mookie2001]

I never said that was the basis of anything, just that you were wrong

youre not often wrong about something in the political forum

it makes you mad, you cant let it go



but it indicates that it was a bad/unsuccessful investigation

and a connection to the terrorist organization "al queda" is fuzzy at best and was most likely another terrorist group

[mookie2001]

-another terrorist group with the same intentions of harming us

[Nbadan]

...I haven't read McDermott's book, but how sad that chump's definitive investigation into the lives of the perpetrators is done by a author with a limited budget....

[ChumpDumper]

I never said that was the basis of anything, just that you were wrongIn what why am I wrong?

What is your source for this?

There are names for all the hijackers, and only four of them have no birthdate listed.

I still don't know why you think none of them have been identified.

[ChumpDumper]

...I haven't read McDermott's book, but how sad that chump's definitive investigation into the lives of the perpetrators is done by a author with a limited budget....And your nontheory is based upon?