Home | Community | Message Board


High Mountain Compost
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
9/11 Questions
    #5312170 - 02/17/06 10:03 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I have some questions about things that don't add up about 9/11. What happend to the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? In all the pictures there is only debris, none of the actual plane. Was the plane that hit the Pentagon ever recoverd? I read it wasn't. Also what casued WTC 7 to collapse? The man who owned the building said he and the fire department decided to "pull it down". I couldn't find any explanation and I would sleep better if I had one. Also give me some sources if you have em.


Edited by Turn (02/17/06 10:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5312203 - 02/17/06 10:16 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Dont forget that all the jews who worked at the WTC didnt show up on 9/11. Coincedence? I think not.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5312413 - 02/17/06 11:50 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

A good place to start, it will get you thinking.


--------------------
"this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineClammyJoe
Azurescen Head
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 11/03/05
Posts: 3,691
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: TheDude]
    #5312514 - 02/18/06 01:17 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

It really was a plane, we can be theorist my friends, but lets not be outlandish.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,831
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: ClammyJoe]
    #5312753 - 02/18/06 05:46 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

If this was some kind of "inside" job, which a lot of people and web sites claim, why didn't the US government also plant evidence proving that Saddam was responsible for the whole thing?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: gregorio]
    #5312782 - 02/18/06 06:12 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

And if this government had that much ability to conspire, surely they could have snuck some WMDs into Iraq and planted them.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: gregorio]
    #5312802 - 02/18/06 06:34 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

They obviously didn't have too. Look how far they got with saddam already.


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

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: barfightlard]
    #5313005 - 02/18/06 09:54 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

So none of you have ANSWERS to the questions? See why arn't there any responses to these claims? Give me an explanation other than an inside job.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5313027 - 02/18/06 10:25 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

There aren't any responses because there a bazillion other threads on this topic UTSF!


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Tao]
    #5313066 - 02/18/06 10:59 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I did use the Search and couldn't find one thread on 9/11, the search isn't all that user friendly. Ahhh there are some helpful threads at the bottom though.

Ahhhh and there was a good answer on another website: If tower 7 was rigged with explosives they would have been extremly obvious due to the very loud noise they would make when they explode. But that just ruels out one way it could have fallen, not explaining how it did


Edited by Turn (02/18/06 11:24 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegregorio
Too Damn Old
Male

Registered: 09/08/05
Posts: 2,831
Loc: Classified
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: barfightlard]
    #5313148 - 02/18/06 11:41 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

As far as building alliances with other nations....not very far at all.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5313162 - 02/18/06 11:46 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblebukkake
LEFT WING NUT
Male

Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,750
Loc: Classified
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5313284 - 02/18/06 12:38 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

The government refuses to answer many direct questions. Loose Change is an interesting film about a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

THe official explanation for WTC7's collapse is ridiculous. It resembled an exact controlled demolition.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheDude
is waiting forthe peak

Registered: 04/15/03
Posts: 2,876
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5313287 - 02/18/06 12:39 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

The real issue with 9/11 is one of accountability and not whether a missile or plane hit the pentagon or the plethora of fringe theories out there. I want to know why top officials were not held accountable for the greatest intelligence and security failure in the history of this nation.


--------------------
"this lebowski he called himself 'the dude'. now, 'dude', that's a name no one would self-apply where i come from but there was a lot about the dude that didn't make sense to me...."--the Stranger


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: TheDude]
    #5313967 - 02/18/06 05:12 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I also frequent sherdog and someone there asked me to post in the most recent 9/11 thread. I've gone over a lot of the questions most CTs pose(including the ones you have) although I'm not done. Ill be replying to all of their posts and then explaining wtc7 to my best ability sometime this weekend.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=335655

I'm mossberg. I'd appreciate it if anyone could make some comments about my posts.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGabbaDj
BTH
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,567
Loc: By The Lake
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5314268 - 02/18/06 06:43 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

What I want to know is whats happened to all those peoples lawsuits?

The families who didnt take the government pay off and sued. And didnt some guy sue Bush over this about many of those unanswered questions?


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG          C8.com                    http://www.beatsopjefiets.com/   


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: GabbaDj]
    #5314449 - 02/18/06 07:57 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Huh this argues the other side but dosn't explain why there is no plane wreckage from flight 93. Anyone have an explanation to that?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: TheDude]
    #5314614 - 02/18/06 09:00 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

TheDude said:
I want to know why top officials were not held accountable for the greatest intelligence and security failure in the history of this nation.



It's a curious thing, but in politics, when you fuck up, the first response is to claim that you don't have enough power, enough authority and enough money. What's even stranger is the number of people from many political mind sets who buy into that crap. If a mechanic tries to fix a flat, and the wheel falls off as you drive down the street, do you give him more money and ask him to work on your brakes while he re-attaches the wheel?


--------------------
Sincerely,

Skeptikos


Edited by Skeptikos (02/18/06 10:14 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5315805 - 02/19/06 08:17 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Let me give you some hints:

Who most benefitted from the terrorist attacks?

I think that should get you on the right track...

Also, definitely check out "Loose Change". The link to the torrent is somewhere on this forum.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5319482 - 02/20/06 10:49 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

exclusive58 said:Also, definitely check out "Loose Change". The link to the torrent is somewhere on this forum.




http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5322933 - 02/21/06 04:07 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

All old news that has been debated into oblivion... There are basically two schools of thought:

1) Terrorists attacked the US
2) The US government attacked the US

I am firmly in group 1, but then I am a scientist and a critical thinker that requires proof, or at least realistic evidence, before I will accept something.

There are a lot of people in group 2. There is a lot of conflicting information, therefore a conspiracy must exist.

The main thing that I notice about group 2 is the absolute inability to accept any evidence that goes against the conspiracy theory. They will claim there was no plane. You show them pictures of the plane parts spread all over the area. They will continue to claim there is no plane. You will show them more pictures of plane parts from the site. They will then claim that the plane parts were added later, or some other boneheaded excuse.

Decide for yourself which group you are in, but keep an open mind and think through what is being presented. You will see stuff like, "The pentagon lawn was covered in sand and gravel immediately after the attack to hide something." Of course, if you talk to the people that were there, you will find out that the sand and gravel came later, when the heavy construction equipment was brought in, to provide a solid foundation for the machines to work upon (rather than a soggy, muddy field). For almost every insane conspiracy "inconsistency", there is an honest and simple answer.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5323793 - 02/21/06 11:59 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
All old news that has been debated into oblivion... There are basically two schools of thought:

1) Terrorists attacked the US
2) The US government attacked the US



3) The US government knowingly allowed the terrorists to attack the US

While I suppose it could just be explained by stupidity, I do believe that #3 is a reasonable school of thought, given the evidence.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMisterMyco
Myco-fanatic
Male

Registered: 12/08/05
Posts: 636
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Silversoul]
    #5324858 - 02/21/06 05:16 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Paradigm said:
Quote:

Seuss said:
All old news that has been debated into oblivion... There are basically two schools of thought:

1) Terrorists attacked the US
2) The US government attacked the US



3) The US government knowingly allowed the terrorists to attack the US

While I suppose it could just be explained by stupidity, I do believe that #3 is a reasonable school of thought, given the evidence.




That really wouldn't be a THIRD explanation, it would just be a further clarification of point number one.


--------------------
"I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel no spiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural."
Isaac Asimov


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5326501 - 02/21/06 11:25 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

This is for all the people that said the Pentagon was hit by a missle.

Here's a website http://911review.com/pm/markup/



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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5326835 - 02/22/06 01:17 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

same shit...different asshole...



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


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Annapurna1]
    #5327543 - 02/22/06 10:26 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

You are comparing a systematic extermination of people with a person who's main purpose is to establish security for America with minimal casualties? Yes, same shit, I agree.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: downforpot]
    #5328401 - 02/22/06 03:27 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
You are comparing a systematic extermination of people with a person who's main purpose is to establish security for America with minimal casualties? Yes, same shit, I agree.




How can you prove that Bush's main purpose is to establish security for America? Because he said so? I mean Hitler said the same thing. He didn't acheive popularity on a platform of "let's gas the jews," but "I'm going to make Germany safe and wealthy again." He appealed to the citizens need for stability and security.

Don't get pissed, I agree that when the left compares Bush to Hitler they are being stupid. Hitler came to your house and killed your family based on ethnicity. That is blatantly evil.

But do you really believe Bush, or any politician, is about to tell Joe Public what their real primary concerns are? What does he have to gain from telling the truth vs. what does he have to gain from lying?


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: MisterMyco]
    #5328432 - 02/22/06 03:43 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

MisterMyco said:
Quote:

Paradigm said:
Quote:

Seuss said:
All old news that has been debated into oblivion... There are basically two schools of thought:

1) Terrorists attacked the US
2) The US government attacked the US



3) The US government knowingly allowed the terrorists to attack the US

While I suppose it could just be explained by stupidity, I do believe that #3 is a reasonable school of thought, given the evidence.




That really wouldn't be a THIRD explanation, it would just be a further clarification of point number one.




You don't see a difference between the government not knowing that there was about to be an attack vs. allowing an attack to happen?!?!? What if it had been a nuclear bomb instead of an airplane? Same thing, right?

FDR pulled the same move in WWII, and is the one thing I can't forgive him for. He knew that Japanese were planning an attack, and used Pearl Harbor to whip up a frenzied support of US military involvement in the war. Before Pearl Harbor, Americans were mostly contented to let the war stay in Europe and Asia. Ultimately I'm glad we fought in WWII, but I have to admit it was a dirty trick letting the enemy bomb us first.

I think they pulled it in Vietnam too, isn't there speculation that the attack on the ships off the coast of N. Vietnam was staged?

Anyway, the government will do it everytime. They don't care how many Americans die, just as long as they can get their war underway. The only question is whether or not the war is worth getting underway. Only WWII was in my opinion. But even I won't pretend like it was about defense, it was about domination. It takes a dull mind to actually believe that the current war is about defense.


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePenguarky Tunguin
f n o r d
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 17,190
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: downforpot]
    #5328666 - 02/22/06 05:06 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
This is for all the people that said the Pentagon was hit by a missle.

Here's a website http://911review.com/pm/markup/







That's one of my favorite pics.  "Hey guys, here's a picture of the plane reckage at the pentagon, see see, there it is."  And it's a 4 foot section off of any plane in existance.  :whatever:


--------------------
Every mistake, intentional or otherwise, in the above post, is the fault of the reader.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkeptikos
GeneticallyEngineeredBonobo

Registered: 01/15/06
Posts: 145
Loc: Rome, west side
Last seen: 11 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: gluke bastid]
    #5328683 - 02/22/06 05:13 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

The U.S. was already involved in WWII against the Japanese before Pearl Harbor. Three items come to mind which I'm sure helped to instill in the Japanese mind that the U.S. was already the enemy: The Flying Tigers, The Lend Lease Act, Embargoes. WWII was BIG business for U.S. Industrialists and the Banking Cartel, it also served to divert the common man's attention away from Roosevelt's failed policies to pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression.


--------------------
Sincerely,

Skeptikos


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Penguarky Tunguin]
    #5329551 - 02/22/06 09:11 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

DMT, what the fuck are you talking about.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePenguarky Tunguin
f n o r d
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 17,190
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: downforpot]
    #5330267 - 02/23/06 12:28 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

What I meant was: You're telling me I'm supposed to believe that an airliner struck the pentagon and all the debris that is left is a tiny bite size piece like that shown in the photo?? Please....I've taken dumps bigger than that.


--------------------
Every mistake, intentional or otherwise, in the above post, is the fault of the reader.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: downforpot]
    #5330511 - 02/23/06 02:42 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
This is for all the people that said the Pentagon was hit by a missle.

Here's a website http://911review.com/pm/markup/





Hey, that was a very useful read. you probably didn't read it before posting the link (there is still no hard evidence that prove it really was a 757 that crashed in the pentagon), but thanx anyways.

I had already read Popular Mechanic's attempt to debunk the skeptic's claim that 9/11 was an inside job, but I wasn't convinced by it, and that link shows how sloppy and how poorly argumented their article really is. The lack of logical reasoning in there is almost embarassing, how could an engineering magazine not realize that the official explanation is full of contradictions, falacies and misleads? Maybe the reason for that is that there have been connections between the owners of Popular Mechanics and the intelligence agencies and industries that have most benefited from the 9/11/01 attack. http://911review.com/disinfo/press/index.html

This is also a very interesting read, concerning the sudden stupefying fall of the twin towers:
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5330530 - 02/23/06 03:03 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
All old news that has been debated into oblivion.




That's kind of farfetched, there are so many issues with the official story that it is practically impossible to bring all of them up in this forum. And how can you debate something like the fall of WTC7, the phone calls made at high altitudes, the investigators' lack of access to ground zero, the immediate recycling of the rubbles, etc etc. Its ridiculous.

Quote:

There are basically two schools of thought:

1) Terrorists attacked the US
2) The US government attacked the US

I am firmly in group 1, but then I am a scientist and a critical thinker that requires proof, or at least realistic evidence, before I will accept something.




If you were really scientific about it, keeping an open mind and all, then you would have taken an objective look at both sides, just like I did. And I'm sorry to say, but there is far more and far stronger arguments in favor of the cover-up version than the government's version of the story. :shrug:

I think in the end, since most people are unable to examine the entirety of the facts for themselves, its a matter of faith.. the most important factor for deciding which side one takes is the question "Do I believe the government could do something against its people for its own interests or not?"

The people who take side number 1 usually have this type of strain of thought:

"I believe in the President, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty.  I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men.  I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.

And I believe all Americans are so well educated in the basic physics, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them. "

And then, there's the people who tend to "question authority", who analyze what they're being fed before accepting it as truth, who don't put all their trust in their government. These folks tend to fall under the second category (or the third mentioned by Paradigm).


Quote:

Decide for yourself which group you are in, but keep an open mind and think through what is being presented.




:thumbup:


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


Edited by exclusive58 (02/24/06 04:40 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5332872 - 02/23/06 08:01 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

You people will turn anything into a conspiracy if it doesn't suit you. We never landed on the moon, it's the truth.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5332877 - 02/23/06 08:04 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

A serious question i have in 9/11 Was how the fuck they found one of the terrorists passports laying conveniently in the rubble if liquid fuel burned carbon steel girders enough to collapse?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5333409 - 02/23/06 10:13 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

And once again what happend to Flight 93, the one that crashed in Philidelphia, in the picture, only one I could find, there is no plane wreckage. Just a hole in the ground with scraps all around it but no engine, cabin, or wings. Does anyone have an explanation of this? If not it shows there is something wrong with the official story.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5333628 - 02/23/06 11:06 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Unless you people design airplanes for a living, blow up buildings, or are actually trained experts in the areas that you are discussing, you are just making uneducated guesses.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #5334120 - 02/24/06 04:43 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Another interesting question:
How the fuck is it possible that they only found one of the eight black boxes that the planes should have left behind??


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5334436 - 02/24/06 09:52 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

> And once again what happend to Flight 93, the one that crashed in Philidelphia, in the picture, only one I could find, there is no plane wreckage.

There was, it was just too small to see in pictures... part of a finger here, a bit of a tooth there, part of a screw over here, a bit of rubber from a tire, there, etc.

Remember, a plane is not built like a car... if it were, it would be too heavy o get off the ground. A plane is built to be light, not strong. A plane is constructed from aluminum, magnesium, and plastic for the most part, with very little steel. Solid aluminum will oxidize with heat into a gas, as will magnesium. Toss an empty aluminum soda can into a hot fire and try to find the can later when the fire goes out... you won't be able to locate it any more than you can find the plane in the picture. Trust me, it wasn't terrorists that snuck to your camp fire and snagged the soda can out of the fire.

The velocity at which the plane struck also had a large impact in the debris. When a crash happens at extreme velocity, rather than a few big parts spread out over a little area, you get lots of little parts spread out over a huge area. Think of a bowling ball striking a concrete floor. If the ball is going slow, it will split into a few fragments that are all close together. If the ball is going extremely fast, it will turn into powder with a few small fragments that will spray out over a large area.

Again, there was a lot of wreckage from the crash, but it was small and spread over a large area. The photos you see were taken from a distance and lack the resolution needed to identify the small parts. The bulk of the plane vaporized, literally, when it struck the ground, both from the kinetic energy of the crash and from the burning jet fuel.

> How the fuck is it possible that they only found one of the eight black boxes that the planes should have left behind??

Again, you have to appreciate the energy released from these 'accidents'. The towers going down released the as much energy as a small nuclear bomb detonating. There is a lot of potential energy in a skyscraper. The black boxes are good, but they aren't that good. I don't know which box they found, but I would expect it to be one from the Pentagon crash site first, followed by flight 93 second, and the towers the least likely of all.

When thinking about the black boxes, ask yourself why have two boxes on each plane if the boxes are so great that they always survive a crash and are easy to locate. Do a search and look at how many other crashes there have been that the boxes were not found. It isn't that uncommon for the black boxes to be lost, or damaged beyond use in a crash.

The only two conspiracies from 9/11 that I can believe might be true are:

1) Flight 93 was shot down
2) Tower 7 was pulled down

If Tower 7 was indeed pulled down, I suspect it was pulled down for safety and is being kept quite for insurance reasons, not because of some US/terrorists/Bush/neocon plot to take over the world.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePenguarky Tunguin
f n o r d
Male User Gallery
Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 17,190
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: downforpot]
    #5334659 - 02/24/06 11:33 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

downforpot said:
Unless you people design airplanes for a living, blow up buildings, or are actually trained experts in the areas that you are discussing, you are just making uneducated guesses.





I beleive there were QUESTIONS asked, not guesses.


--------------------
Every mistake, intentional or otherwise, in the above post, is the fault of the reader.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Penguarky Tunguin]
    #5334736 - 02/24/06 12:10 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

You ask questions and at the same exact time you are convinced that it was all a conspiracy.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5335525 - 02/24/06 05:05 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Turn said:
And once again what happend to Flight 93, the one that crashed in Philidelphia




Flight 93 crashed nowhere near Philadelphia. It crashed in Shanksville, PA.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5335666 - 02/24/06 05:57 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

The distance from Shanksville to Philadelphia is about equivalent to the distance from this thread to reality


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: zappaisgod]
    #5336671 - 02/25/06 12:29 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The distance from Shanksville to Philadelphia is about equivalent to the distance from this thread to reality




Hehe nice

But I am still not sold on the plane crash. In every other picture of a plane crash there has always been plenty of wreckage. Do any of ya'll have pictures of plane crashes where there is just debris?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5338478 - 02/25/06 04:46 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
I don't know which box they found, but I would expect it to be one from the Pentagon crash site first, followed by flight 93 second, and the towers the least likely of all.




Actually, the official version is that the 2 black boxes from the pentagon crash have been found (there are confliciting govt. stories though in the data analysis of these, with the FBI saying it contained nothing useful, and Rumsfeld saying it was unrecoverable), as well as the 2 blackboxes from flight 93. Officially no blackboxes were found at ground zero.

Now, with all the info I've brought together, I personally find it hard to believe that a 757 crashed in the pentagon. And when they tell you that investigators reported finding a serrated belt-clip knife, as well a a cigarette lighter with a concealed blade at the flight 93 crash site, but not any remains of the plane itself, you have to acknowledge the possibility that the blackboxes were planted there shortly after the crashes in order for the media to reinforce the story of the 757 crashes, just like you'd have to admit the possibility that the blades and knives were planted there to reinforce the hijackers story.

Moreover, while the government was in possession of the blackboxes of flight 93, they told the public that heroic passengers had crashed the plane in order to save the White House. But when the victims' families insisted on hearing voice recordings, the story got changed to "hijackers crash plan to prevent passengers from getting into the cockpit". The whole "heroic passengers" story was propaganda. And keep in mind that none of the data was released to the public. Which is too bad because what it contains would answer alot of questions.

Concerning the WTC blackboxes, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials said they should have withstood the conditions there. Usually, following any airplane accident in the United States, safety investigators from the NTSB immediately begin searching for the aircraft's black boxes. But how are they going to find them if they aren't given access to the ground zero area?? And how are you going to find them, and any other valuable information that could explain things, if the rubbles are quickly being sent elsewhere to be recycled??

Quote:

When thinking about the black boxes, ask yourself why have two boxes on each plane if the boxes are so great that they always survive a crash and are easy to locate.  Do a search and look at how many other crashes there have been that the boxes were not found.  It isn't that uncommon for the black boxes to be lost, or damaged beyond use in a crash.




Wrong, and wrong again. There are two black boxes in a plane because one is a voice recorder, and the other is a data recorder. And its actually rare for the boxes not to be recovered. NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz says: "It?s extremely rare that we don?t get the recorders back, I can?t remember another case which we did not recover the recorders".

Blackboxes are designed to withstand enormous impact and heat and resist temperatures of up to 1100 degrees celcius. The temperature in the towers had only risen up to 815 degrees. So you're telling me the blackboxes didn't survive the crash and the destruction of the towers (although this is scientifically very improbable), but somehow some FBI agents conveniently found a hijacker's passport in the rubbles??  :rolleyes:


Also, for your information, there has been a rescue worker who claimed he had spotted 3 blackboxes in the rubbles and said that FBI agents had recovered them and had tried to silence him concerning his discovery.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5338698 - 02/25/06 06:13 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Now, with all the info I've brought together, I personally find it hard to believe that a 757 crashed in the pentagon.




Then you haven't brought enough info together. How do you explain the fact that the remains of the bodies found at the Pentagon crash site have been positively identified through DNA analysis as belonging to the passengers and crew of the plane that crashed into it?

Leave aside the debris found and photographed at the site and identified as having come from the plane in question if you wish. Leave aside the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane strike the Pentagon if you wish. Just explain to us how all the passengers and crew who boarded that plane the morning of September 11, 2001 ended up as corpses and pieces of corpses inside the Pentagon later that same morning.

Good luck.




Phred


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phred]
    #5338710 - 02/25/06 06:16 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Just explain to us how all the passengers and crew who boarded that plane the morning of September 11, 2001 ended up as corpses and pieces of corpses inside the Pentagon later that same morning.





They were executed and their corpses were loaded into the missile. Duh!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5338741 - 02/25/06 06:27 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Turn said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The distance from Shanksville to Philadelphia is about equivalent to the distance from this thread to reality




Hehe nice

But I am still not sold on the plane crash. In every other picture of a plane crash there has always been plenty of wreckage. Do any of ya'll have pictures of plane crashes where there is just debris?




Usually a plane crash that leaves only small debris is caused by a massive explosion, the terrorists were reported to have plastic explosives on the plane, this is a good explanation for that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5339164 - 02/25/06 08:34 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Turn said:
And once again what happened to Flight 93, the one that crashed in Philidelphia, in the picture, only one I could find, there is no plane wreckage. Just a hole in the ground with scraps all around it but no engine, cabin, or wings. Does anyone have an explanation of this? If not it shows there is something wrong with the official story.




because the plane was shot down, the debris was scattered around, and the government covered up the fact that they shot it down. That's why there is basically one camera angle/shot of the 'crash site' and it is from 200 yards away. It was a cover up (conspiracy). On 9/11 i clearly remember seeing multiple reporters talking about debris landing as far as 7 miles from the 'crash site' as well as eye witnesses claiming to have seen the explosion in the sky. The next day of course all reports in that vein ceased and the story was replaced with some noble tale of american self-sacrifice and heroism.

So, yeah...that is a conspiracy on the part of the government. So what makes any of you think they aren't covering anything else up?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #5339316 - 02/25/06 09:16 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

JonnyOnTheSpot said:
because the plane was shot down, the debris was scattered around, and the government covered up the fact that they shot it down. That's why there is basically one camera angle/shot of the 'crash site' and it is from 200 yards away.





Huh? I think you are getting the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the plane that crashed into the field in Pennsylvania confused. The plane that crashed into the field was in the middle of nowhere and therefore there is no tape. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was recorded by a guard station camera.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #5339380 - 02/25/06 09:37 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:
Quote:

JonnyOnTheSpot said:
because the plane was shot down, the debris was scattered around, and the government covered up the fact that they shot it down. That's why there is basically one camera angle/shot of the 'crash site' and it is from 200 yards away.





Huh? I think you are getting the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the plane that crashed into the field in Pennsylvania confused. The plane that crashed into the field was in the middle of nowhere and therefore there is no tape. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon was recorded by a guard station camera.




no, i'm not confused at all. here is the camera angle i was refering to that was shown on the news for days, or weeks to represent the 'crash site' Doesn't really look like a plane crash to me.



and here's the site where i found this picture, that actually talks about all the stuff i remember seeing on the news the day of the attacks, when everyone was scrambling to report what was going on. http://www.utopiax.org/ua93.html All the reports of mid air explosions and and eye witnesses finding debris miles away, which mysteriously blinked out of existence the next day and was replaced by the plot of an action movie. Mind you, i had never read this site or any other about this specific cover up. I knew this theory was out there though, but just never bothered digging around for web sites about it, mainly because i didn't need to because it was easy enough to put together myself.

and i know people will say 'even if it is true, big deal, let these peoples families get some small measure of closure in thinking their family members were national heroes' and maybe that is true to some extent. But the point was to show that the government did engage in 9/11 cover ups. it's plain as day to anyone with half a brain and a slightly better memory than a gold fish that the government is lying about certain things, such as this plane crash. Which leads me to believe that they are probably lying about plenty of other things to.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #5339400 - 02/25/06 09:43 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Oh...ok. I thought you were talking about video of the actual crashes happening.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: DieCommie]
    #5339470 - 02/25/06 10:10 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Dont forget that all the jews who worked at the WTC didnt show up on 9/11. Coincedence? I think not.




You have got to be kidding me.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phluck]
    #5339515 - 02/25/06 10:23 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
You have got to be kidding me.



I'm pretty sure he is.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phred]
    #5340156 - 02/26/06 04:36 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
How do you explain the fact that the remains of the bodies found at the Pentagon crash site have been positively identified through DNA analysis as belonging to the passengers and crew of the plane that crashed into it?




And how do YOU explain the fact that victim and hijacker DNA is identified despite claims that much of the 757's aluminum has been consumed in the ensuing fire? Don't forget that its the army and the FBI personnel that did most of the collecting job...
If they can plant a hijacker's passport at the WTC and blades and knives at the flight 93 crash site, and make people believe that these are proofs that the planes were hijacked, surely they can do the same with DNA.

Quote:

Leave aside the debris found and photographed at the site and identified as having come from the plane in question if you wish.




I'm far from leaving that aside, in fact the engine that was found inside the pentagon has nothing to do with a 757 engine: its dimensions are barely a third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers a Boeing 757.

Quote:

Leave aside the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane strike the Pentagon if you wish.




Hundreds of eyewitnesses of a 757? I call BS.

Besides, there were numerous reports of eyewitnesses claiming they saw something else than a 757.



I'm sorry to say, but I have the feeling that if someone is uninformed here, its you :shrug:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5340209 - 02/26/06 06:16 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Hundreds of eyewitnesses of a 757? I call BS.

Besides, there were numerous reports of eyewitnesses claiming they saw something else than a 757.


Uh... there were a LOT of people from all over the DC area that saw the plane and identified it as a 757. Those claiming it looked like something else represent a small minority.

If you whizz something through the sky, over the heads of many, many people, it's only natural that a bunch of them will swear up and down that it looked different from what it actually was. Claiming that since a small percentage of the people who saw the plane didn't think it looked like a 757 it must be something else is not a rational argument. It's the argument of someone desperate to shoehorn the information they have into their theory.


I'm far from leaving that aside, in fact the engine that was found inside the pentagon has nothing to do with a 757 engine: its dimensions are barely a third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers a Boeing 757.


I haven't found a SINGLE source that provides accurate or well validated sources for this information. They all claim to have measurements of the engine found based on photos of charred rubble. A photograph of a burned out pile of debris IS NOT by any means an accurate source of measurement information... UNLESS you're trying to avoid having to use actual data, which might be very useful if you want to be able to argue a hypothsis where having the actual information might hurt your case.

Anyways, if someone is smart enough to orchestrate a huge terrorist attack and pin it on another group, and they're trying to make it look like a 757 hit the Pentagon,why not use a 757? Anything else would be ridiculously stupid.

Once again, people with no formal training in science or investigating photographs or anything claim to know more about these things than all of the experts out there. Why would a bunch of amateurs jump to conclusions and make false assumption? Obviously that NEVER happens.  :rolleyes:

But people see the websites, and they see phrases like "If it were really a 757, it would have done FAR more damage." and they think, "hrmm, he seems to know what he's talking about, he must be right". But no, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just talking out his ass. He thinks he's right, that's why he's saying it, but that doesn't mean he is. He has no scientific evidence for his claim, no math or measurements to back it up. But his mental picture of a plane crash, most likely formed by movies and TV shows, doesn't quite match up with what he's seeing. Since he sounds so sure of himself, lots of people believe him.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5340346 - 02/26/06 08:49 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

exclusive58 writes:

Quote:

And how do YOU explain the fact that victim and hijacker DNA is identified despite claims that much of the 757's aluminum has been consumed in the ensuing fire?




What has that got to do with anything? This is the Pentagon crash we're talking about, not the Twin Towers site. There was far less fire damage at the Pentagon site. Some bodies were found largely intact, as was some luggage and personal effects.

Quote:

Don't forget that its the army and the FBI personnel that did most of the collecting job...
If they can plant a hijacker's passport at the WTC and blades and knives at the flight 93 crash site, and make people believe that these are proofs that the planes were hijacked, surely they can do the same with DNA.




And with that the conversation ends. No matter what evidence is presented, no matter how many sworn affidavits are shown to you, you will refuse to accept it. You'd rather believe the tin foil hat brigade because.... well, just because.

Here are facts for you to chew on. Not speculation, but FACTS:

-- X number of crew and passengers boarded that plane the morning of September 11, 2001.

-- by the afternoon of September 11, 2001, rescue crews were pulling out the remains and personal effects of people who had been killed at the Pentagon.

-- positive identifications have been made of the X people who boarded that plane on September 11 and ended up as some of those corpses and pieces of corpses removed from the Pentagon starting that afternoon.

Unless you can explain how the hell all those people and their wallets and purses and luggage and laptop computers and jewelry and briefcases managed to escape from the plane before it took off and make their way into the Pentagon before it was hit, you have to admit the only way they got there was as occupants of the plane when it hit the Pentagon.

Or you can claim -- with no evidence whatsoever -- that the more than fifty forensic pathologists recruited from all over (NOT all government employees, much less FBI or Army employees) all got together and agreed to lie (for what reason?) about having positively identified the corpses and their personal effects. This seems to be your preferred strategy. In which case, you must STILL provide an answer to the following questions --

-- where is that plane?
-- where are the crew and passengers who boarded that plane the morning of September 11, 2001?

I've been reading this forum for over five years now. I've seen some pretty bizarre statements made here in that time, believe me. But of all the ridiculous things I've read in this forum, just about nothing tops the posts refusing to face facts about the Pentagon crash site. "Oh... a team of over fifty pathologists has positively identified the bodies? Well... then they must be lying about that! Chimpy Bushitler McHalliburton and his Rovian minions paid them off."

Good grief.




Phred


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phred]
    #5340398 - 02/26/06 09:26 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I think that the entire conspiracy theory community is really a religion whose core belief is that it's not at all difficult to carry out a huge plot, involving thousands of people, without having any of them leak your deep secrets.

Conspiracy theorists seem to think that if you can get creative and imagine a scenario that explains the unanswered questions, that's just as good as having actual evidence. All a conspiracy theorist needs to do to get rid of nagging questions that reasonable people would consider huge blows against the theory.

Your question, for example: "All the people on the planes were actually deeply involved in the conspiracy. They're now living in a bunker underground somewhere." or "All the people in the planes were really people who knew too much, they were kidnapped at the airports, and their phone calls home were really just made by actors." Of course there's no evidence for any of these explanations, but conspiracy theories are not about evidence, they're about making up wacky stories where you make an effort to avoid contradicting any of the real information.

Say I came home and I found a bunch of bananas that weren't there before. Where did they come from? The conspiracy theorist might say that a burglar broke in and left them there as part of an elaborate ploy to test me and see if I'd notice little differences around the house. It's a somewhat illogical and useless plot, but I don't have any direct evidence to contradict it. A more reasonable thought would be that maybe my parents came home and left them there, but that's not much of an interesting story, is it? Conspiracy theorists want excitement. Most of their stories are really just about entertaining themselves.

Most of them also don't have any formal training in say, law or science. They don't know a whole lot about the requirements of evidence and proof. If they did, when 50 witnesses claimed one thing, and two witnesses claimed another, they would never take the 2 witnesses words over the 20. When they heard that a plane couldn't make a hole a certain size, or that a plane would never leave such a small amount of debris, they'd ask "Are you sure?".

I've actually seen on some of these conspiracy pages, people comparing the pentagon crash to planes that skidded across fields and into buildings. I don't understand how someone could possibly think that someone flying an airplane at full speed into one of the most fortified buildings on the planet would have the same results as a plane that was attempting to land, skidding into a normally constructed building... but these people aren't looking for the truth. They're looking for evidence that supports what they already believe.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phluck]
    #5340547 - 02/26/06 10:29 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:

I'm far from leaving that aside, in fact the engine that was found inside the pentagon has nothing to do with a 757 engine: its dimensions are barely a third the diameter of a large turbofan engine that powers a Boeing 757.


I haven't found a SINGLE source that provides accurate or well validated sources for this information. They all claim to have measurements of the engine found based on photos of charred rubble. A photograph of a burned out pile of debris IS NOT by any means an accurate source of measurement information... UNLESS you're trying to avoid having to use actual data, which might be very useful if you want to be able to argue a hypothsis where having the actual information might hurt your case.

Anyways, if someone is smart enough to orchestrate a huge terrorist attack and pin it on another group, and they're trying to make it look like a 757 hit the Pentagon,why not use a 757? Anything else would be ridiculously stupid.

Once again, people with no formal training in science or investigating photographs or anything claim to know more about these things than all of the experts out there. Why would a bunch of amateurs jump to conclusions and make false assumption? Obviously that NEVER happens.  :rolleyes:

But people see the websites, and they see phrases like "If it were really a 757, it would have done FAR more damage." and they think, "hrmm, he seems to know what he's talking about, he must be right". But no, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just talking out his ass. He thinks he's right, that's why he's saying it, but that doesn't mean he is. He has no scientific evidence for his claim, no math or measurements to back it up. But his mental picture of a plane crash, most likely formed by movies and TV shows, doesn't quite match up with what he's seeing. Since he sounds so sure of himself, lots of people believe him.




About the engine part: The idea that the engine parts photographed at the crash site were too small to be from an engine found on a 757 is based on a failure to appreciate that different parts of a modern high-bypass turbofan engine differ dramatically in diameter. The high-pressure compressor and turbine rotors are only about one-third the approximately 8-foot diameter of the fan. They match......

I swear its fucking useless to debate anything with CT people. In that sherdog thread i linked to earlier i tried to ask someone what was wrong about the official story so he sourced a 2 hour long video from a physics phd(nuclear physics........) and just expected me to not bother. Well i wanted to surprise him so i explained the collapse of the towers and refuted every single point he made during the first hour of the video and then ran out of time to do the rest.

Guess what his response to my roughly two hours of work was. I quote, "Mossberg, I read your lengthy posts and I will grant you this, it makes some sense. But then again, so does anything that is well thought out and supported with arguments that appear to be coherent. "

What a fucking joke.

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=335655


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJ4S0N
human
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 284
Last seen: 12 years, 1 day
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phluck]
    #5341856 - 02/26/06 05:07 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

So basically what your saying is that Osama and his cavemen trainies can keep a secret from the worlds intelligence agencies, but people who make there way into high places in the U.S government wouldn't be able to keep a secret. I don't follow that logic, but thats your opinion.

A conspiracy is what 9/11 was, by definition. We're arguing about who provided POWER and skills needed to pull off this event.


--------------------
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 2 months, 13 days
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: J4S0N]
    #5342028 - 02/26/06 05:46 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Uh...

First off, the 9/11 report kind of hinted that they WEREN'T able to keep the secret.

But anyways, the 9/11 conspiracy would involve many, many people in all branches of government, in many companies all over the US. Public figures, people who know people, all kinds of people.

For Al Qaeda to keep a secret? They need a small group of people to not tell anyone. You're like "how could a bunch of guys living in a cave keep a secret better than the US government?" Sure, being in the US government makes some things easier, but I'm sorry, keeping secrets is something that a small group of people in a cave have a HUGE advantage on.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phluck]
    #5342046 - 02/26/06 05:50 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah, they definitely didn't keep it a secret. We just fucked up on intelligence.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phred]
    #5343947 - 02/27/06 01:34 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
exclusive58 writes:

Quote:

And how do YOU explain the fact that victim and hijacker DNA is identified despite claims that much of the 757's aluminum has been consumed in the ensuing fire?




What has that got to do with anything?




What? It doesn't seem a bit strange that practically all of the plane burned up in flames, including a titanium-made engine, but they still managed to find practically all of the victims' DNA?

Quote:

Quote:

Don't forget that its the army and the FBI personnel that did most of the collecting job...
If they can plant a hijacker's passport at the WTC and blades and knives at the flight 93 crash site, and make people believe that these are proofs that the planes were hijacked, surely they can do the same with DNA.




And with that the conversation ends. No matter what evidence is presented, no matter how many sworn affidavits are shown to you, you will refuse to accept it. You'd rather believe the tin foil hat brigade because.... well, just because.




I'm not refusing to accept anything, and the conversation doesn't end here unless YOU want it to. I'm just debating here. I'm not telling you that this or that is the truth. And I'm sorry but your arguments aren't quite convincing. I think the reason we are opposed here is because somehow you refuse to see that something's wrong with the fact that they can find a hijacker's passport in the WTC rubbles and blades and knives at the pennsylvania crash site, and if you can't see that something's wrong with that, then I am not surprised you wouldn't see something wrong with anything else.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phluck]
    #5343958 - 02/27/06 01:41 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
I haven't found a SINGLE source that provides accurate or well validated sources for this information. They all claim to have measurements of the engine found based on photos of charred rubble. A photograph of a burned out pile of debris IS NOT by any means an accurate source of measurement information... UNLESS you're trying to avoid having to use actual data, which might be very useful if you want to be able to argue a hypothsis where having the actual information might hurt your case.




Okay, point taken. I agree with you.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5344567 - 02/27/06 09:06 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

exclusive58 writes:

Quote:

It doesn't seem a bit strange that practically all of the plane burned up in flames, including a titanium-made engine, but they still managed to find practically all of the victims' DNA?




Who says "practically all" of the plane burned up? There are photos on the web of many parts of that plane, including almost complete and barely charred landing gear pieces.

Quote:

I'm not refusing to accept anything, and the conversation doesn't end here unless YOU want it to. I'm just debating here. I'm not telling you that this or that is the truth.




Yeah, right. When you make statements like, "Don't forget that its the army and the FBI personnel that did most of the collecting job...
If they can plant a hijacker's passport at the WTC and blades and knives at the flight 93 crash site, and make people believe that these are proofs that the planes were hijacked, surely they can do the same with DNA,"
what else am I supposed to interpret that as but disbelief that the bodies have been identified?

By the way, it is bullshit to state that the passports and knives were "planted". You have no evidence whatsoever that this was the case, just your own prejudiced speculation.

You have no way to dispute the evidence I have presented -- the identification of the corpses -- except to insinuate that the people doing the identification are all members of "the plot". Unless you can provide evidence that all these people are lying, the facts show that the Pentagon was indeed hit by that airliner the morning of September 11. That alone ends the debate. Nothing more need be said.

If it pleases you to believe all those people got together and agreed to lie about identifying the bodies, no further evidence I present will change your mind. Nothing more I could possibly present would ever be more compelling that single piece of evidence. That's why I say the conversation is over.

Quote:

And I'm sorry but your arguments aren't quite convincing.




Nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- closes the debate more effectively than positive identification of the bodies. There is quite literally no other possible way for all of them to have made it from inside that airplane (and it is amply proven that they WERE inside that airplane) to inside the Pentagon hours later unless the plane had been flown into the Pentagon.

That's why I say that if you don't find that argument convincing, NOTHING I or anyone else can ever present will convince you. You'd rather natter on about the "anomalous" survival of a few artifacts, completely overlooking the fact that in EVERY airplane crash there are seemingly unlikely discoveries. I strongly suggest (knowing you'll never follow up on it, but hey... at least I gave it a shot) you look up a few NTSB reports on other crash sites. You'll be astonished at some of the bizarre juxtapositions of debris (and body parts) discovered at virtually every crash site -- including sometimes even crashes at sea.




Phred


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phred]
    #5345339 - 02/27/06 01:27 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

DUDE!...the bodies were obviously loaded into the missile or planted by the first responders.

www.infowars.com


Edited by RandalFlagg (02/27/06 03:52 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Phred]
    #5346678 - 02/27/06 07:02 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
exclusive58 writes:

Quote:

It doesn't seem a bit strange that practically all of the plane burned up in flames, including a titanium-made engine, but they still managed to find practically all of the victims' DNA?




Who says "practically all" of the plane burned up? There are photos on the web of many parts of that plane, including almost complete and barely charred landing gear pieces.





Phred, go back and read how exclusive58 himself mentioned engine parts being the wrong size in pictures at the pentagon site. Now he claims practically all of the plane burnt up including the engine. He is obviously trolling. No way he is this deluded.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineexclusive58
illegal alien

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 2,146
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5348406 - 02/28/06 06:32 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

dude, they only found one engine.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: exclusive58]
    #5349696 - 02/28/06 02:26 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

exclusive58 said:
dude, they only found one engine.




First of all the engines were wrecked to shit in the crash as evidenced by the few pictures showing engine debris. Secondly, find me a valid source evidencing that parts from only one engine were recovered and identified.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5373944 - 03/07/06 11:43 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Please people, inform yourself about the most important issue of our time. I've done my research, read the official reports, watched many hours of video and can only come to one conclusion.

The official account of 9/11 is a lie!

Watch a video:

Loose Change 2nd Edition
[url=
&q=loose+change]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change[/url]

"9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used?"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=psP_9RE0V2I

Or read this article (i apologize for the poor layout due to copy&pasting):

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
Authorized Version (with references & notes)
 

 

In The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.

    But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.

    In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.

I will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.

 

 

1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers

 

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate ?outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September? (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against ?outrageous conspiracy theories? (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government?s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let?s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

    With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: ?The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building? (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

 

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

    Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: ?They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]? (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because ?the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure? (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three. 

    There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: ?steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.? Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: ?It was the fire that killed the buildings. There?s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted? (Barter, 2001).[7]

    These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800? Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700?F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

    Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300˚F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

    But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were ?probably only about 1,200 or 1,300˚F? (Eagar, 2002).

    There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, ?only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250˚C [482˚F],? and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it ?did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors?. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST?s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

    Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300˚F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300˚F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into ?towering infernos.? But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only ?two isolated pockets of fire.?[15]

The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump.

In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that ?very intense? fires ?burned for a long time.?[17] But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

    To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building?s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia?s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building?s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although ?eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage? (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building?s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.

Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows.

    Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: ?Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900?C (1,500-1,700?F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments? (1988, Appendix A).

    These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST?s claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18]

    A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: ?[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service? (Glover, 2002).

 

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition

There is a reverse truth to the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure known as ?controlled demolition,? in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought down by explosives.

This a priori assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination of the particular nature of the collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly describe these eleven features.

 

Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

 

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, ?to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,? the demolition must be ?completely planned,? using ?the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges? (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]

 

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the ?South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds? (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the ?pancake? theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors ?pancaked? all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building?s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture, explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)

 

Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: ?The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped? (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

    The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832?F, and this combination of factors somehow produced ?global collapse? (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST?s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482?F (250˚C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350?F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global?-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that ?column failure? occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26]



Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: ?Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.?[27]

    The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be ?chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.?[28]



Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, ?nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.?[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O?Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ?At the World Trade Center sites,? he told the History Channel, ?it seemed like everything was pulverized? (History Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.

 

Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle?s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]

The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman (2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower?s dust cloud, calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy available.

The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel). 

Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman?s words: ?You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That?s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.?[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: ?[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.?

The importance of King?s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST?s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, ?it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones.

 

Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that ?[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers? (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

 

Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.[32]

 

Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

 

Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of ?literally molten steel? at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, ?hot spots of molten steel? were found ?at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels? (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers, said: ?As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running? (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: "Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.[34]

This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to melt.

 

The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11 features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official theory typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in Popular Mechanics (2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by ?conspiracy theorists,? completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions.[35]

 

2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena

in the 9/11 Oral Histories

 

Most of these 11 features---all but the slicing of the core columns and the molten steel in the basements---are features that, if they occurred before or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed by people in the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these phenomena have been available, since shortly after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37] police officers,[38] people who worked in the towers,[39] and one prominent explosives expert, Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day after viewing the videotapes, that the collapses not only resembled those produced by controlled implosions but must, in fact, have been caused by ?some explosive devices inside the buildings? because they were ?too methodical? to have been chance results of the airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of these testimonies were very impressive. There were, however, only a few of them and they were scattered here and there. No big body of testimony was readily accessible.

But this situation has dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, the New York Fire Department recorded over 500 oral histories, in which firefighters and emergency medical workers recounted their experiences of that day. [Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department(Dwyer, 2005a).] Mayor Bloomberg?s administration, however, refused to release them. But then the New York Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit and, after a long process, the New York Court of Appeals ordered the city to release the bulk of these oral histories, which it did in August 2005[42] (Dwyer, 2005b). The Times then made them publicly available (NYT, 2005).[43]

    These oral histories contain many dozens of testimonies that speak of explosions and related phenomena characteristic of controlled demolition. I will give some examples.

 

Explosions

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: ?we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down? (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

    Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: "I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down? (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, ?it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters ?heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down? (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6). 

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, ?it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned ?pops.? Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)

 

Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire
According to the official account, the ?pancaking? began when the floors above the hole caused by the airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began somewhat lower. 

Timothy Burke said that ?the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion? (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

    Firefighter Edward Cachia said: ?It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down? (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

    The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive 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 September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward.

Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?

 

Flashes and Demolition Rings

Some of the witnesses spoke of flashes and of phenomena suggestive of demolition rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: ?I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?? (NYT, Gregory, pp. 14-16).

Captain Karin Deshore said: ?Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building" (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: ?[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions? (NYT, Banaciski, pp. 3-4).

Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said: ?It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV" (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14).

 

Horizontal Ejections

A few witnesses spoke of horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers said: ?There was what appeared to be . . . an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse? (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4).

This testimony is important, because the official theory holds that the ejections were produced by the floors collapsing. So listen to firefighter James Curran, who said: ?I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed" (NYT, Curran, pp. 10-11).

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said, ?the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor" (NYT, Dixon, p. 15).[44]

 

Synchronized Explosions

Some witnesses said that the explosions seemed to be synchronized. For example, firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, ?there was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . . . t looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing" (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45]

 

Why Does the Public Not Know of These Reports?
If all these firefighters and medical workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part of the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that ?there were definitely bombs in those buildings,? Isaac added that ?many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they?re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ?higher-ups? forbid discussion of this fact? (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the answer is that when a few people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken out, the mainstream press has failed to report their statements.

 

 

3. Implications

 

The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur is essentially zero.[46]

    We can say, therefore, that the official theory about the towers is disproved about as thoroughly as such a theory possibly could be, whereas all the evidence can be explained by the alternative theory, according to which the towers were brought down by explosives. The official theory is, accordingly, an outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a scientific point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]

 

 

4. Other Suspicious Facts

 

Moreover, although we have already considered sufficient evidence for the theory that the towers were brought down by explosives, there is still more. 

 

Removal of the Steel: For one thing, the steel from the buildings was quickly removed before it could be properly examined,[48] with virtually all of it being sold to scrap dealers, who put most of it on ships to Asia.[49] Generally, removing any evidence from the scene of a crime is a federal offense. But in this case, federal officials facilitated the removal.[50]

This removal evoked protest. On Christmas day, 2001, the New York Times said: ?The decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses from the WTC in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known.?[51] The next week, Fire Engineering magazine said: ?We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence (Brannigan, Corbett, and Dunn, 2002). . . . The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately? (Manning, 2002).

However, Mayor Bloomberg, defending the decision to dispose of the steel, said: "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do.[52] Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."[53] But that is not true. An examination of the steel could have revealed whether it had been cut by explosives.

    This removal of an unprecedented amount of material from a crime scene suggests that an unprecedented crime was being covered up.[54]

Evidence that this cover-up was continued by NIST is provided by its treatment of a provocative finding reported by FEMA, which was that some of the specimens of steel were ?rapidly corroded by sulfidation? (FEMA 2002, Appendix C). This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. FEMA appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the New York Times called ?perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation? (Killough-Miller, 2002). A closely related problem, expressed shortly after 9/11 by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, is that ?[f]ire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated? (Glanz, 2001). But the NIST report, in its section headed ?Learning from the Recovered Steel,? fails even to mention either evaporation or sulfidation.[55] Why would the NIST scientists apparently share Mayor Bloomberg?s disdain for empirical studies of recovered steel?

 

North Tower Antenna Drop: Another problem noted by FEMA is that videos show that, in the words of the FEMA Report, ?the transmission tower on top of the [north tower] began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building? (FEMA 2002, ch. 2).[56] This drop was also mentioned in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton, which said: ?Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first? (Glanz and Lipton, 2002). In the supposedly definitive NIST Report, however, we find no mention of this fact. This is another convenient omission, since the most plausible, and perhaps only possible, explanation would be that the core columns were cut by explosives---an explanation that would fit with the testimony of several witnesses.

 

South Tower Tipping and Disintegration: If the north tower?s antenna drop was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the south tower?s collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors---above the level struck by the airplane---began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building?s footprint. ?However,? observe Paul and Hoffman, ?as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque? (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).

And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, ?this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!? This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building?s footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, ?does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached? (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones?s question: ?How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?? (Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:

 

y differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west. (Else, 2004)

 

Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official theory becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition is adopted.

 

WTC Security: The suggestion that explosives might have been used raises the question of how anyone wanting to place explosives in the towers could have gotten through the security checks. This question brings us to a possibly relevant fact about a company---now called Stratesec but then called Securacom---that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. From 1993 to 2000, during which Securacom installed a new security system, Marvin Bush, the president?s brother, was one of the company?s directors. And from 1999 until January of 2002, their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO (Burns, 2003).[57] One would think these facts should have made the evening news---or at least The 9/11 Commission Report. 

These facts, in any case, may be relevant to some reports given by people who had worked in the World Trade Center. Some of them reportedly said that although in the weeks before 9/11 there had been a security alert that mandated the use of bomb-sniffing dogs, that alert was lifted five days before 9/11 (Taylor and Gardiner, 2001).

Also, a man named Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust---the company for which Kristen Breitweiser?s husband worked---has written:

 

On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a ?power down? condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many ?engineers? [were] coming in and out of the tower.[58]

Also, a man named Ben Fountain, who was a financial analyst with Fireman?s Fund in the south tower, was quoted in People Magazine as saying that during the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated ?a number of times? (People Magazine, 2001).

 

Foreknowledge of the Collapse: One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said:

 

We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building.[59]

 

This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, ?none of the :fire: chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible? (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?

    The most reasonable answer, especially in light of the new evidence, is that someone knew that explosives had been set in the south tower and were about to be discharged. It is even possible that the explosives were going to be discharged earlier than originally planned because the fires in the south tower were dying down more quickly than expected, because so much of the plane?s jet fuel had burned up in the fireball outside the building.[60] This could explain why although the south tower was struck second, suffered less structural damage, and had smaller fires, it collapsed first---after only 56 minutes. That is, if the official story was going to be that the fire caused the collapse, the building had to be brought down before the fire went completely out.[61]

    We now learn from the oral histories, moreover, that Giuliani is not the only one who was told that a collapse was coming. At least four of the testimonies indicate that shortly before the collapse of the south tower, the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had predicted the collapse of at least one tower.[62] The director of OEM reported directly to Giuliani.[63] So although Giuliani said that he and others ?were told? that the towers were going to collapse, it was his own people who were doing the telling.


As New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer has pointed out, the 9/11 Commission had access to the oral histories.[64] It should have discussed these facts, but it did not.

    The neglect of most of the relevant facts about the collapses, manifested by The 9/11 Commission Report, was continued by the NIST Report, which said, amazingly:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. . . . [Our simulation treats only] the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building . . . was poised for collapse (80n, 140).

Steven Jones comments, appropriately:

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? . . . What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas . . . ? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were ?poised for collapse.?  Well, some of us want to look at all the data, without computer simulations that are ?adjusted? to make them fit the desired outcome. (Jones, 2006)

 

Summary: When we add these five additional suspicious facts to the eleven features that that the collapses of the Twin Towers had in common with controlled demolitions, we have a total of sixteen facts about the collapses of these buildings that, while being inexplicable in terms of the official theory, are fully understandable on the theory that the destruction of the towers was an inside job.

 

 

5. The Collapse of Building 7

 

As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission simply ignored the facts discussed above. Still another matter not discussed by the Commission was the collapse of building 7. And yet the official story about it is, if anything, even more problematic than the official story about the towers?as suggested by the title of a New York Times story, ?Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC? (Glanz, 2001).[65]

 

Even More Difficult to Explain 

The collapse of building 7 is even more difficult to explain than the collapse of the towers in part because it was not struck by an airliner, so none of the theories about how the impacts of the airliners contributed to the collapses of the towers can be employed in relation to it.

Also, all the photographic evidence suggests that the fires in this building were small, not very hot, and limited to a few floors. Photographs of the north side of the building show fires only on the 7th and 12th floors of this 47-floor building. So if the south side, which faced the towers, had fires on many other floors, as defenders of the official account claim, they were not big enough to be seen from the other side of the building.[66]

It would not be surprising, of course, if the fires in this building were even smaller than those in the towers, because there was no jet fuel to get a big fire started. Some defenders of the official story have claimed, to be sure, that the diesel fuel stored in this building somehow caught fire and created a towering inferno. But if building 7 had become engulfed in flames, why did none of the many photographers and TV camera crews on the scene capture this sight?

The extreme difficulty of explaining the collapse of building 7?-assuming that it is not permissible to mention controlled demolition---has been recognized by the official bodies. The report prepared under FEMA?s supervision came up with a scenario employing the diesel fuel, then admitted that this scenario had ?only a low probability of occurrence.?[67] Even that statement is generous, because the probability that some version of the official story of building 7 is true is the same as it is for the towers, essentially zero, because it would violate several laws of physics. In any case, the 9/11 Commission, perhaps because of this admission by FEMA, avoided the problem by simply not even mentioning the fact that this building collapsed.

This was one of the Commission?s most amazing omissions. According to the official theory, building 7 demonstrated, contrary to the universal conviction prior to 9/11, that large steel-frame buildings could collapse from fire alone, even without having been hit by an airplane. This demonstration should have meant that building codes and insurance premiums for all steel-frame buildings in the world needed to be changed. And yet the 9/11 Commission, in preparing its 571-page report, did not devote a single sentence to this historic event.

 

Even More Similar to Controlled Implosions

Yet another reason why the collapse of building 7 is especially problematic is that it was even more like the best-known type of conventional demolition?-namely, an implosion, which begins at the bottom (whereas the collapse of each tower originated high up, near the region struck by the plane). As Eric Hufschmid has written:

 

Building 7 collapsed at its bottom. . . . [T]he interior fell first. . . .  The result was a very tiny pile of rubble, with the outside of the building collapsing on top of the pile.[68]

 

    Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is ?by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions.":69: Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying:

The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the "official" theory)---requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude that the evidence for the 9/11 use of pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.[70]

 

Much More Extensive Foreknowledge

Another reason why the collapse of building 7 creates special problems involves foreknowledge of its collapse. We know of only a few people with advance knowledge that the Twin Towers were going to collapse, and the information we have would be consistent with the supposition that this knowledge was acquired only a few minutes before the south tower collapsed. People can imagine, therefore, that someone saw something suggesting that the building was going to collapse. But the foreknowledge of building 7?s collapse was more widespread and of longer duration. This has been known for a long time, at least by people who read firefighters? magazines.[71] But now the oral histories have provided a fuller picture.

 

Widespread Notification: At least 25 of the firefighters and medical workers reported that, at some time that day, they learned that building 7 was going to collapse. Firefighters who had been fighting the fires in the building said they were ordered to leave the building, after which a collapse zone was established. As medical worker Decosta Wright put it: ?they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand,? which was ?5 blocks away? (NYT, Wright, pp. 11-12).

 

Early Warning: As to exactly when the expectation of the collapse began circulating, the testimonies differ. But most of the evidence suggests that the expectation of collapse was communicated 4 or 5 hours in advance.[72]

 

The Alleged Reason for the Expectation: But why would this expectation have arisen? The fires in building 7 were, according to all the photographic evidence, few and small. So why would the decision-makers in the department have decided to pull firefighters out of building 7 and have them simply stand around waiting for it to collapse?

    The chiefs gave a twofold explanation: damage plus fire. Chief Frank Fellini said: ?When [the north tower] fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing? (NYT, Fellini, p. 3).

    There are at least two problems with each part of this explanation. One problem with the accounts of the structural damage is that they vary greatly. According to Fellini?s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was ?20 stories tall? (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, ?On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out? (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

The different accounts of the problem on the building?s south side are not, moreover, limited to the issue of the size of the hole. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, the problem was not a hole at all but a ?bulge,? and it was ?between floors 10 and 13" (Hayden, 2002).

The second problem with these accounts of the damage is if there was a hole that was 10 or 20 floors high, or even a hole (or a budge) that was 4 floors high, why was this fact not captured on film by any of the photographers or videographers in the area that day?

With regard to the claims about the fire, the accounts again vary greatly. Chief Daniel Nigro spoke of ?very heavy fire on many floors? (NYT, Nigro, p. 10). According to Harry Meyers, an assistant chief, "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories" (quoted in Smith, 2002, p. 160). That obvious exaggeration was also stated by a firefighter who said: ?[Building 7] was fully engulfed. . . . [Y]ou could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other? (NYT, Cassidy, p. 22).

    Several of the testimonies, however, did not support the official line. For example, medical technician Decosta Wright said: ?I think the fourth floor was on fire. . . . [W]e were like, are you guys going to put that fire out?? (NYT, Wright, p. 11). Chief Thomas McCarthy said: ?[T]hey were waiting for 7 World Trade to come down. . . . They had . . . fire on three separate floors . . . , just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said ?we know?? (NYT, McCarthy, pp. 10-11).

    The second problem with the official account here is that if there was ?very heavy fire on many floors,? why is this fact not captured on any film? The photograph that we have of the north side of the building supports Chief McCarthy?s view that there was fire on three floors. Even if there were fires on additional floors on the south side of the building, there is no photographic support for the claim that ?the flames [on these additional floors went] straight through from one side of the building to the other.? 

Moreover, even if the department?s official story about the collapse of building 7 were not contradicted by physical evidence and some of the oral histories, it would not explain why the building collapsed, because no amount of fire and structural damage, unless caused by explosives, had ever caused the total collapse of a large steel-frame building.[73] And it certainly would not explain the particular nature of the collapse---that the building imploded and fell straight down rather than falling over in some direction, as purportedly expected by those who gave the order to create a large collapse zone. Battalion Chief John Norman, for example, said: ?We expected it to fall to the south? (Norman 2002). Nor would the damage-plus-fire theory explain this building?s collapse at virtually free-fall speed or the creation of an enormous amount of dust?additional features of the collapses that are typically ignored by defenders of the official account.

    The great difficulty presented to the official theory about the WTC by the collapse of building 7 is illustrated by a recent book, 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, one of the authors of which is New York Times reporter Jim Dwyer, who wrote the stories in the Times about the release of the 9/11 oral histories. With regard to the Twin Towers, Dwyer and his co-author, Kevin Flynn, support the theory put out by NIST, according to which the towers collapsed because the airplanes knocked the fire-proofing off the steel columns, making them vulnerable to the ?intense heat? of the ensuing fires.[


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Una]
    #5374068 - 03/07/06 12:20 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

i apologize for some of the smileys that popped up in the above article since this matter is dead serious.


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5376724 - 03/08/06 07:25 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

d33p said:
I swear its fucking useless to debate anything with CT people. In that sherdog thread i linked to earlier i tried to ask someone what was wrong about the official story so he sourced a 2 hour long video from a physics phd(nuclear physics........) and just expected me to not bother. Well i wanted to surprise him so i explained the collapse of the towers and refuted every single point he made during the first hour of the video and then ran out of time to do the rest. [...]
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=335655


Heh, I read the whole thread, and it's funny how you "ran out of time to do the rest" when the rest amounted to tackle the WTC7 issue, of which you said from the beginning that you kept that one for later. Later never came...  :shocked:

For me as for many others, as I said before in other threads, WTC7 was the one that toppled me over to looking into the rest of it. And really, if you consider that issue along with all aspects of the style of the three collapses, there's no doubt possible.

Just one example: when critics of the government version argue that there were no ingredients to make the fires hot enough to melt the steel, its supporters go on to say you only needed temps high enough to make the steel lose its structural strength, which means: make it bend. If the steel just bent, the collapse would have been relatively slow (meaning: definitely slower than freefall), progressive and irregular.

I wonder how you can imagine that the combination of:
- instant onset of collapse,
- regular and vertical fall at freefall speed,
- complete destruction of towers almost down to ground level (where are the 47 huge steel central columns?),
- reduction of all the concrete to powder, and
- the presence of molten and yellow hot metal up to six weeks after the fact,
is possible in the frame of the official government story.


Edited by Aldous (03/08/06 07:37 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5376744 - 03/08/06 07:41 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I just saw that i missed half of the article....

Here's the rest:

Another Explanation: There is, in any case, only one theory that explains both the nature and the expectation of the collapse of building 7: Explosives had been set, and someone who knew this spread the word to the fire chiefs.

    Amazingly enough, a version of this theory was publicly stated by an insider, Larry Silverstein, who owned building 7. In a PBS documentary aired in September of 2002, Silverstein, discussing building 7, said:

 

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ?We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.?[76] And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. (PBS, 2002) [77]

 

It is very puzzling, to be sure, that Silverstein, who was ready to receive billions of dollars in insurance payments for building 7 and the rest of the World Trade Center complex, on the assumption that they had been destroyed by acts of terrorism, would have made such a statement in public, especially with TV cameras running. But his assertion that building 7 was brought down by explosives, whatever the motive behind it, explains why and how it collapsed.

We still, however, have the question of why the fire department came to expect the building to collapse. It would be interesting, of course, if that information came from the same agency, the Office of Emergency Management, that had earlier informed the department that one of the towers was going to collapse. And we have it on good authority that it did. Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, ?Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management? told him that building 7 was ?basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out (Murphy, 2002, pp. 175-76).[78]

    But that answer, assuming it to be correct, leaves us with more questions, beginning with: Who in the Office of Emergency Management knew in advance that the towers and building 7 were going to collapse? How did they know this? And so on. These questions could be answered only by a real investigation, which has yet to begin.

 

 

6. Conclusion

 

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government.

    The evidence for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush?s advice not to tolerate ?outrageous conspiracy theories.? We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration?s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics. 

    There is, of course, another reason why the mainstream press has not pointed out these contradictions. As a recent letter to the Los Angeles Times said:

The number of contradictions in the official version of . . . 9/11 is so overwhelming that . . . it simply cannot be believed. Yet . . . the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of ?X-Files? proportions and insidiousness.[79]

 

The implications are indeed disturbing. Many people who know or at least suspect the truth about 9/11 probably believe that revealing it would be so disturbing to the American psyche, the American form of government, and global stability that it is better to pretend to believe the official version. I would suggest, however, that any merit this argument may have had earlier has been overcome by more recent events and realizations. Far more devastating to the American psyche, the American form of government, and the world as a whole will be the continued rule of those who brought us 9/11, because the values reflected in that horrendous event have been reflected in the Bush administration?s lies to justify the attack on Iraq, its disregard for environmental science and the Bill of Rights, its criminal negligence both before and after Katrina, and now its apparent plan not only to weaponize space but also to authorize the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike. 

    In light of this situation and the facts discussed in this essay---as well as dozens of more problems in the official account of 9/11 discussed in my books---I call on the New York Times to take the lead in finally exposing to the American people and the world the truth about 9/11. Taking the lead on such a story will, of course, involve enormous risks. But if there is any news organization with the power, the prestige, and the credibility to break this story, it is the Times. It performed yeoman service in getting the 9/11 oral histories released. But now the welfare of our republic and perhaps even the survival of our civilization depend on getting the truth about 9/11 exposed. I am calling on the Times to rise to the occasion.

 

ENDNOTES




 



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

[1] Both lectures are also available on DVDs edited by Ken Jenkins (kenjenkins@aol.com). See also Griffin, 2005c.

 

[2] Bush?s more complete statement was: ?We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of 11 September---malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.? Excellent advice.

 

[3] This report was carried out by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) on behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The public was exposed to this theory early on, with CNN saying shortly after 9/11: ?The collapse, when it came, was caused by fire. . . . The fire weakened that portion of the structure which remained after the impact. . . to the point where it could no longer sustain the load? (CNN, September 24, 2001).



[4] NIST describes the collapses of the towers as instances of ?progressive collapse,? which happens when "a building or portion of a building collapses due to disproportionate spread of an initial local failure" (NIST Report, p. 200). NIST thereby falsely implies that the total collapses of the three WTC buildings were specific instances of a general category with other instances. NIST even claims that the collapses were ?inevitable.?

 

[5] Leslie Robertson, who was a member of the firm (Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson) that was responsible for the structural design of the Twin Towers, said that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, at that time (1966) the largest airliner. See ?The Fall of the World Trade Center,? BBC 2, March 7, 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml). For a comparison of the 707 and the 767, see ?Boeing 707-767 Comparison,? What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html). Also relevant is the fact that in 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building at the 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. But there was never the slightest indication that this accident would cause the building to collapse (see Glover, 2002).

 

[6] The NIST Report (2005, pp. xliii and 171) says: ?the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.?

 

[7] Supported by these authorities, the show went on to claim that ?as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800˚C [1472˚F]---hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.?

 

[8]In Griffin, 2004, pp. 12-13, I cite Professor Thomas Eagar?s acknowledgment of this fact.

 

[9] Given the fact that the claim that the fires in the towers melted its steel is about as absurd, from a scientific point of view, as a claim could be, it is amazing to see that some scientific journals seemed eager to rush into print with this claim. On the day after 9/11, for example, New Scientist published an article that said: ?Each tower [after it was struck] remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts? (Samuel and Carrington, 2001). The article?s title, ?Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives?, reflects the equally absurd claim---attributed to ?John Hooper, principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when the World Trade Center was designed?---that ?[m]ost buildings would have come down immediately.?

 

[10] Stating this obvious point could, however, be costly to employees of companies with close ties to the government. On November 11, 2004, Kevin Ryan, the Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, which is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, wrote an e-mail letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In this letter, Ryan stated: ?We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000˚F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000˚F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000˚F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.? After Ryan allowed his letter to become public, he was fired. His letter is available at http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php.

 

[11] One well-known attempt to defend the official account has tried to use the absurdity of the steel-melting claim against those who reject the official account. In its March issue of 2005, Popular Mechanics magazine published a piece entitled ?9/11: Debunking the Myths? (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y). This article sets out to debunk what it alleges to be ?16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists.? One of these ?poisonous claims,? according to Popular Mechanics, results from the fact that that these ?conspiracy theorists? have created a straw-man argument---pretending that the official theory claims that the buildings came down because their steel melted---which the conspiracy theorists could then knock down. Popular Mechanics ?refutes? this straw-man argument by instructing us that ?[j]et fuel burns at 800? to 1500?F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750?F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength.? As we have seen, however, the idea that the towers collapsed because their steel melted was put into the public consciousness by some early defenders of the official theory. For critics of this theory to show the absurdity of this claim is not, therefore, to attack a straw man. The idea that the official theory is based on this absurd claim is, in any case, not one of ?the most prevalent claims? of those who reject the official theory.

 

[12] Even Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST study, said: ?The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes? (Field, 2004). The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): ?The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.?

 

[13] The NIST Report (2005, p. 68), trying to argue that steel is very vulnerable unless it is protected by insulation, says: ?Bare structural steel components can heat quickly when exposed to a fire of even moderate intensity. Therefore, some sort of thermal protection, or insulation, is necessary?. As Hoffman (2005) points out, however: ?These statements are meaningless, because they ignore the effect of steel?s thermal conductivity, which draws away heat, and the considerable thermal mass of the 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower.? Also, I can only wonder if the authors of the NIST Report reflected on the implications of their theory for the iron or steel grating in their fireplaces. Do they spray on new fireproofing after enjoying a blazing hot fire for a few hours?

 

[14]Quoted in ?WTC 2: There Was No Inferno,? What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_fire.html).

 

[15] Quoted in ?Tape Sheds Light on WTC Rescuers,? CNN, August 4, 2002 (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/04/wtc.firefighters/). The voices of the firefighters reportedly ?showed no panic, no sense that events were racing beyond their control.? (Dwyer and Fessenden, 2002)

 

[16] As Eric Hufschmid (2002, p. 33) says: ?A fire will not affect steel unless the steel is exposed to it for a long . . . period of time?.

 

[17] CNN, September 24, 2001.

 

[18] Kevin Ryan, in his letter to Frank Gayle (see note 10, above), wrote in criticism of NIST?s preliminary report: ?This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. . . . Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.?

 

[19] See, for example, Eric Hufschmid?s ?Painful Deceptions? (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman?s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff King?s website (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html), especially ?The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition??

 

[20] Incredibly, after explaining how precisely explosives must be set to ensure that a building comes straight down, Loizeaux said that upon seeing the fires in the Twin Towers, he knew that the towers were ?going to pancake down, almost vertically. It was the only way they could fail. It was inevitable.? Given the fact that fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse, let alone in a way that perfectly mimicked controlled demolition, Loizeaux?s statement is a cause for wonder. His company, incidentally, was hired to remove the steel from the WTC site after 9/11.

 

[21] The fire theory is rendered even more unlikely if the first two characteristics are taken together. For fire to have induced a collapse that began suddenly and was entirely symmetrical, so that it went straight down, the fires would have needed to cause all the crucial parts of the building to fail simultaneously, even though the fires were not spread evenly throughout the buildings. As Jim Hoffman has written: ?All 287 columns would have to have weakened to the point of collapse at the same instant? (?The Twin Towers Demolition,? 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d., http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/slides.html).

 

[22] That statement is probably a slight exaggeration, as the videos, according to most students, seem to suggest that the collapses took somewhere between 11 and 16 seconds. But this would still be close to free-fall speed through the air. 

 

[23] As physicist Steven Jones puts it, ?the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references . . . . 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. . . . ut this is not the case. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed? (Jones, 2006; until then available at http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html). 

 

[24] Each box column, besides being at least 36 by 16 inches, had walls that were at least 4 inches thick at the base, then tapered off in the upper floors, which had less weight to support. Pictures of columns can be seen on page 23 of Hufschmid, 2002. The reason for the qualification ?at least? in these statements is that Jim Hoffman has recently concluded that some of them were even bigger. With reference to his article ?The Core Structures: The Structural System of the Twin Towers,? 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d. [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html], he has written (e-mail letter of October 26, 2005): ?Previously I've been saying that the core columns had outside dimensions of 36" X 16", but I now think that at least 1/3 of them had dimensions of 54" X 22", based on early articles in the Engineering News Record and photographs I took of close-up construction photos on display at the Skyscraper Museum in Manhattan. . . . Also, according to the illustration in the Engineering News Record, the thickness of the steel at the bases was 5", not 4".?

 

[25] And, as Hoffman (2005) says, NIST?s claim about these tremendously hot fires in the core is especially absurd given the fact that the core ?had very little fuel; was far from any source of fresh air; had huge steel columns to wick away the heat; [and] does not show evidence of fires in any of the photographs or videos.? All the evidence, in other words, suggests that none of the core columns would have (from the fire) reached the highest temperatures reached by some of the perimeter columns.



[26] NIST rests its theory largely on the idea that collapse began with the failure of the trusses. Being much smaller and also less interconnected, trusses would have been much easier to heat up, so it is not surprising that the NIST Report focuses on them. To try to make its theory work, however, NIST claims that the trusses became hotter than their own evidence supports. That is, although NIST found no evidence that any of the steel had gotten hotter than 1112˚F (600?C), it claims that some of the steel trusses were heated up to 1,292˚F (700˚C) (2005, pp. 96, 176-77). A supposedly scientific argument cannot arbitrarily add 180˚F just because it happens to need it. In any case, besides the fact that this figure is entirely unsupported by any evidence, NIST?s theory finally depends on the claim that the core columns failed as ?a result of both splice connection failures and fracture of the columns themselves,? because they were ?weakened significantly by . . . thermal effects? (2005, pp. 88, 180). But there is no explanation of how these massive columns would have been caused to ?fracture,? even if the temperatures had gotten to those heights. As a study issued in the UK put it: ?Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described [by NIST] as yet? (Lane and Lamont, 2005).

 

[27] The RDX quotation is in Tom Held, 'Hoan Bridge Blast Set Back to Friday,' www.jsonline.com (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), Updated Dec. 19, 2000 (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec00/hoan20121900a.asp). The DREXS quotation is in Hufschmid?s video, ?Painful Deceptions? (www.EricHufschmid.Net).

 

[28] In that statement, Hoffman said that most of the sections seemed to be no more than 30-feet long. He later revised this, saying that, judging from an aerial image taken 12 days after the attacks, most of the pieces seemed to be between 24 and 48 feet long, with only a few over 50 feet. He also noted that ?the lengths of the pieces bears little resemblance to the lengths of the steel parts known to have gone into the construction,? which means that one could not reasonably infer that the pieces simply broke at their joints (e-mail letter, September 27, 2005).

 

[29] The available evidence, says Hoffman (2003), suggests that the dust particles were very small indeed---on the order of 10 microns.

 

[30] Hoffman (?The Twin Towers Demolition?) says that the clouds expanded to five times the diameter of the towers in the first ten seconds. The Demolition of the Kingdome can be viewed at the website of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317140323). The demolition of the Reading Grain Facility can be seen at ImplosionWorld.com (http://implosionworld.com/reading.html).

 

[31]Jim Hoffman, ?The Twin Towers Demolition.?

 

[32]For visual evidence of this and the preceding characteristics (except sliced steel), see Hufschmid?s Painful Questions; Hufschmid?s video ?Painful Deceptions? (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net); Jim Hoffman?s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html); and Jeff King?s website (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html), especially ?The World Trade Center Collapse: How Strong is the Evidence for a Controlled Demolition??

 

[33] Bollyn says (e-mail letter of October 27, 2005) that these statements were made to him personally during telephone interviews with Tully and Loizeaux, probably in the summer of 2002. Bollyn added that although he is not positive about the date of the telephone interviews, he is always ?very precise about quotes?  (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html).

 

[34]Professor Allison Geyh (2001) of Johns Hopkins, who was part of a team of public health investigators who visited the site shortly after 9/11, wrote: "In some pockets now being uncovered they are finding molten steel?. Dr. Keith Eaton, who somewhat later toured the site with an engineer, said that he was shown slides of ?molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event? (Structural Engineer, 2002, p. 6). Herb Trimpe (2002), an Episcopalian deacon who served as a chaplain at Ground Zero, said: "t was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while. . . . I talked to many contractors and they said . . . beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat."

 

[35] This article in Popular Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly bad. Besides the problems pointed out here and in note 11, above, and note 39, below, the article makes this amazing claim: ?In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.? In reality, as genuine 9/11 researchers know, the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. By extrapolation, we can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters over 1000 times in the decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular Mechanics could be true only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne Stewart incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually intercepted the aircraft in question. This is a most unlikely possibility, especially in light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that ?[NORAD?S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft? (Johnson, 2001).

As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article?s ?senior researcher? was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (see Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, 2005b). Young Chertoff?s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,? Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics? Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,? 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 [http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html]), and Peter Meyer, ?Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,? http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject.

 

[36] NBC?s Pat Dawson reported from the WTC on the morning of 9/11 that he had been told by Albert Turi, the Fire Department?s Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety, that ?another explosion . . . took place . . . an hour after the first crash . . . in one of the towers here. So obviously . . . he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building? (Watson and Perez, 2004). A Wall Street Journal reporter said: ?I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, ?My God, they?re going to bring the building down.? And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions? (Shepard and Trost, 2002). BBC reporter Steve Evans said: ?I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . [T]he base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions? (BBC, Sept. 11, 2001; quoted in Bollyn, 2002).

 

[37] In June of 2002, NBC television played a segment from tapes recorded on 9/11 that contained the following exchange involving firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.

Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion (?911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11,? Part 2, "Tapes Released For First Time", NBC, June 17, 2002 [www.wnbc.com/news/1315651/detail.html]).

 

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli reported that upon entering the north tower?s lobby, he saw elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris. ?I remember thinking . . . how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?? When he reached the 24th floor, he encountered heavy dust and smoke, which he found puzzling in light of the fact that the plane had struck the building over 50 stories higher. Shortly thereafter, he and another fireman ?heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.? After they pried themselves out of the elevator, he reported, ?another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I?m thinking, ?Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!? . . . Then as soon as we get in the stairwell, I hear another huge explosion like the other two. Then I heard bang, bang, bang---huge bangs? (Szymanski, 2005a). A briefer account of Cacchioli?s testimony was made available in the Sept. 24, 2001, issue of People magazine, some of which is quoted in Griffin, 2004, Ch. 1, note 74.

 

[38] Terri Tobin, a lieutenant with the NYPD public information office, said that during or just after the collapse of the south tower, "all I heard were extremely loud explosions. I thought we were being bombed? (Fink and Mathias, 2002, p. 82). A story in the Guardian said: ?In New York, police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a ?planned implosion?? (Borger, Campbell, Porter, and Millar, 2001).

 

[39] Teresa Veliz, who worked for a software development company, was on the 47th floor of the north tower when suddenly ?the whole building shook. . . . [Shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Veliz then made it downstairs and outside. During this period, she says: ?There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons? (Murphy, 2002).

William Rodriguez worked as a janitor in the north tower. While he was checking in for work in the office on sub-level 1 at 9:00 AM, he reports, he and the other 14 people in the office heard and felt a massive explosion below them. "When I heard the sound of the explosion,? he says, ?the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking. . . . Seconds [later], I hear another explosion from way above. . . . Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower.? Then co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!" According to Rodriguez: ?He was burned terribly. The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn?t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below? (Szymanski, 2005b).

Stationary engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the north tower?s sixth sub-basement, stated that after his co-worker reported seeing lights flicker, they called upstairs to find out what happened. They were told that there had been a loud explosion and the whole building seemed to shake. Pecoraro and Chino then went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop, but it was gone. "There was nothing there but rubble,? said Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!? They then went to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls.? Then on the B Level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Finally, when they went up to the ground floor: ?The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. The marble was missing off some of the walls? (Chief Engineer, 2002).

One of the ?prevalent claims? of 9/11 skeptics that Popular Mechanics tries to debunk (see note 11, above) is the claim that explosives were detonated in the lower levels of the tower. The magazine, however, conveniently ignores the testimonies of Veliz, Rodriguez, and Pecoraro.

 

[40] This expert is Van Romero, vice president for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Romero had previously been the director of this institute?s Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.

 

[41] Romero, it is true, changed his public stance 10 days later, as announced in Fleck, 2001. But this is not a convincing retraction. ?Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape,? according to this article, led Romero to conclude that ?the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.? But there is no indication as to what any structural engineer said, or what Romero saw in his ?more detailed looks at the tape,? that led him to change his earlier view that the collapses were ?too methodical? to have been produced by anything except explosives. There is no suggestion as to how weakened beams would have led to a total collapse that began suddenly and occurred at virtually free-fall speed. Romero has subsequently claimed that he did not change his stance. Rather, he claimed that he had been misquoted in the first story. ?I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building. I only said that that's what it looked like? (Popular Mechanics, 2005). But if that is the truth, it is strange that the second story, written by Fleck, did not say this but instead said that Romero had changed his mind. Romero clearly did change his mind---or, to be more precise, his public stance.

A clue to the reason for this change may be provided by another statement in the original article, which said that when the Pentagon was struck, ?[Romero] and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance [at New Mexico Tech], were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech? (Uyttebrouck, 2001). Indeed, as pointed out in a later story on the New Mexico Tech website (?Tech Receives $15 M for Anti-Terrorism Program? [http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/25sept03.html]), the December 2003 issue of Influence magazine named Romero one of ?six lobbyists who made an impact in 2003,? adding that ?[a] major chunk of [Romero?s] job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero was a superstar,? having obtained about $56 million for New Mexico Tech in that year alone. In light of the fact that Romero gave no scientific reasons for his change of stance, it does not seem unwarranted to infer that the real reason was his realization, perhaps forced upon him by government officials, that unless he publicly retracted his initial statements, his effectiveness in lobbying the federal government for funds would be greatly reduced. Romero, to be sure, denies this, saying: ?Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth? (Popular Mechanics, 2005). But that, of course, is what we would expect Romero to say in either case. He could have avoided the charge only by giving a persuasive account of how the buildings could have come down, in the manner they did, without explosives.

 

[42] As Dwyer explained, the oral histories ?were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, who was the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory.?

 

[43] The 9/11 oral histories are available at a New York Times website (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/ met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). I am heavily indebted to Matthew Everett, who located and passed on to me virtually all the statements I have quoted from these oral histories.

 

[44] Like many others, Dixon indicated that he later came to accept the official interpretation, adding: ?Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.? I have here, however, focused on what the witnesses said they first experienced and thought, as distinct from any interpretation they may have later accepted.

 

[45] Some of the testimonies also mentioned the creation of a dust cloud after the explosions. One firefighter said: ?You heard like loud booms . . . and then we got covered with rubble and dust? (NYT, Viola, p. 3). Another said: ?That's when hell came down. It was like a huge, enormous explosion. . . . The wind rushed. . . , all the dust. . . and everything went dark? (NYT, Rivera, p. 7). Lieutenant William Wall said: ?[W]e heard an explosion. We looked up and the building was coming down . . . . We ran a little bit and then we were overtaken by the cloud? (NYT, Wall, p. 9). Paramedic Louis Cook, having said that there was ?an incredible amount of dust and smoke,? added that there was, ?without exaggerating, a foot and a half of dust on my car? (NYT, Cook, pp. 8, 35).

 

[46] Even if we were generous to a fault and allowed that there might be as high as a 1-in-10 chance (a chance much higher than 1-in-100, or 1-in-500) that any one of the 11 features could occur without explosives, the chance that all 11 of them would occur together would be one in 100 billion. (This calculation with its very generous assumption of 1-in-10 does assume the 11 are independent of each other.  For more completeness, if only 6 were independent while 5 were correlated to others, we would still have one chance in a million. Yet, if the chance were 1-in-100 and each is independent, we would have one chance in ten-to-the-22nd-power.)

      Were we to also add in the probability that all these features would occur in three buildings on the same day, the probability would become so vanishingly small that it would be hardly distinguishable from zero. 

      On the other hand, if explosives were used in the buildings, there would be a high probability that all 11 features would have occurred in all three buildings. For this argument, I am indebted to James Fetzer, who---through his essay "'Conspiracy Theories': The Case of 9/11"---inspired it, and to Paul Zarembka, who helped with the final formulation.

 

[47] A nice summary of the argument for this conclusion has been provided by Nila Sagadevan (e-mail communication of November 8, 2005) in response to a person who asked: ?Are you saying all the floors simply fell down as though there were nothing supporting them?? Stating that this is precisely what he was saying, he then suggested the following thought-experiment:



    Imagine a massive steel cable, lowered from a tall crane, firmly secured to the middle of the uppermost (110th) floor of one of the towers.

    Now, imagine that this floor were somehow decoupled from the rest of the structure beneath it.

    Summon your personal genie and have him make all 109 floors and supporting structures beneath this now-supported slab magically disappear.

    What we now have is our concrete floor slab dangling 1,350 feet up in the sky, suspended by a cable from our imaginary crane.

    Now, have your genie cut the cable.

    Your 110th floor would now freefall through the air and impact the ground in about 9 seconds (which is about how long it took for the top floors of both towers to reach the ground).

    Now, imagine a variation of this scenario: We will not decouple the top floor nor dabble with a crane.

    Instead, we shall ask our genial genie to magically ?soften? all the supporting columns of the lower 109 floors.

    Wouldn?t every one of these floors and their now-softened supporting structures immediately begin to buckle under the weight of the 110th floor?

    Wouldn?t this buckling significantly slow down the descent of the top floor by continuing to offer a degree of resistance to its descent?

    Wouldn?t these progressive viscous ?arrests??-the sagging steel aided by ripping rivets, shearing bolts and tearing welds?-slow down the top floor?s fall significantly?

    Wouldn?t this cause the top floor to take a lot longer than 9 seconds to eventually reach the end of its descent and come to rest atop the crushed pile of floors beneath it?

    But on September 11, 2001, every floor, of every tower, fell as though nothing existed below it but air.

    For that to happen, every supporting (i.e., resisting) column beneath every collapsing floor would have had to have been taken out of the way.

    Only well-placed explosives can do that.

    This is what happens in a controlled demolition.



Sagadevan?s point is not significantly affected if we say that the collapse time was closer to 15 seconds, since that is still very close to free-fall speed through the air.

 

[48]The official investigators found that they had less authority than the clean-up crews, a fact that led the Science Committee of the House of Representatives to report that ?the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence? (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/charter.htm).

 

[49] ?Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris,? Eastday.com, January 24, 2002 (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm).

 

[50] This removal was, moreover, carried out with the utmost care, because ?the loads consisted of highly sensitive material.? Each truck was equipped with a Vehicle Location Device, connected to GPS. ?The software recorded every trip and location, sending out alerts if the vehicle traveled off course, arrived late at its destination, or deviated from expectations in any other way. . . . One driver . . . took an extended lunch break of an hour and a half. . . . [H]e was dismissed? (Emigh, 2002).

 

[51] New York Times, December 25, 2001. This protest was echoed by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who said: ?Where there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over. If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That?s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case, you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major . . . manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes. . . . Get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it. . . . After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened? (CBS News, March 12, 2002).

 

[52] Bloomberg was thereby recommending precisely what Bill Manning, the editor of Fire Engineering, had warned against when he wrote: "As things now stand . . . , the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals? (Manning, 2002). What Bloomberg desired and Manning feared is exactly what we got with the NIST Report. It is, in fact, even worse. Physicist Steven Jones, after pointing out that there are ?zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? and that even NIST?s ?actual [computer] models fail to collapse,? asks: ?So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses?? He answers: ?Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very ?severe? cases,? and then these cases were further modified to get the desired result. The NIST Report, Jones adds, admits this, saying on page 142: ?The more severe case . . . was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for [these cases]. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input? (Jones, 2006).

 

[53] ?Baosteel Will Recycle World Trade Center Debris.?

 

[54] Bill Manning wrote: ?The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ?official investigation? blessed by FEMA . . . is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members---described by one close source as a ?tourist trip?---no one's checking the evidence for anything? (Manning, 2002).

 

[55] See the section headed ?The ASCE?s Disclosures of Steel Sulfidation? in Hoffman, 2005.

 

[56] For visual evidence, see Hoffman, ?North Tower Collapse Video Frames: Video Evidence of the North Tower Collapse,? 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, n.d. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/wtc1_close_frames.html).

 

[57] Marvin Bush?s role in the company is mentioned in Craig Unger, 2004, p. 249.

 

[58]Forbes? statement is posted at www.apfn.org/apfn/patriotic.htm.

 

[59] For Giuliani?s complete statement, see ?Who told Giuliani the WTC Was Going to Collapse on 9/11??, What Really Happened, n.d. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html); it can be heard at www.wireonfire.com/donpaul.

 

[60] As Hufschmid points out, ?photos show the spectacular flames vanished quickly, and then the fire . . . slowly diminished? (2002, p. 38).

 

[61] ?If the . . . intention was to blame the collapse on the fires,? Peter Meyer has written, ?then the latest time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down. Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel. . . , the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier. . . . Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower? (Peter Meyer, n.d.).

 

[62] Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division Chief John Peruggia said that he was told that the ?north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.? Medical technician Richard Zarrillo, evidently a liaison between the OEM and EMS, said that he was told that ?the buildings are going to collapse.? Fire Marshal Stephen Mosiello and Deputy Assistant Chief of Safety Albert Turi also used the plural (?buildings?) in reporting what they heard from Zarrillo. Turi reported that when Zarrillo was asked ?where are we getting these reports??, his reply was: ?you know, we?re not sure, OEM is just reporting this? (NYT, Oral Histories of Peruggia, Zarrillo, Mosiello, and Turi).

 

[63] In ?A Brief History of New York City?s Office of Emergency Management,? we read: ?1996: By executive order, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management is created. The Director reports directly to the Mayor, and serves as the local Director of Civil Defense? (http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/other/oem_history.html).

 

[64] ?The city . . . initially refused access to the records to investigators from . . . the 9/11 Commission? but ?relented when legal action was threatened? (Dwyer, 2005b).

 

[65] Glanz (2001) wrote that ?[e]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.?

 

[66]For photographs and discussion, see Hufschmid, 2002, pp. 62-65, and the section entitled ?The ?Raging? Fires at WTC Tower Seven? in ?The World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot Eh?),? Global Research, September 27, 2004 (http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523).

 

[67]FEMA, 2002, Ch. 5, Sect. 6.2, ?Probable Collapse Sequence,? discussed in Griffin, 2004, p. 22.

 

[68] Hufschmid, 2002, p. 64. The collapse of building 7 also had all the other features of conventional demolitions, such as beginning suddenly and then going down at virtually free-fall speed---which in this case meant under 7 seconds. This similarity to conventional implosions was commented on by Dan Rather. Showing a video of the collapse of building 7 on CBS that very evening, Rather said that it was ?reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down? (CBS News, September 11, 2001). Videos of the collapse of building 7, which have seldom appeared on mainstream television, can be viewed at various websites, including www.geocities.com/killtown/wtc7.html and www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html. Particularly good for this purpose is Eric Hufschmid?s DVD, ?Painful Deceptions? (available at www.EricHufschmid.Net).

 

:69: Implosion World.com (http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html). 

 

[70] Steven Jones, e-mail letter, October 10, 2005.

 

[71] See Norman, 2002, and Firehouse Magazine, 2002a and 2002b.

 

[72] Chief Frank Fellini said that the collapse zone was established ?five or six hours? before the building came down, which would have been around noon (NYT, Fellini, p. 3). This time fits with the testimony of a firefighter who said he ?heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down? and of another who said: ?We hung out for hours waiting for seven to come down? (NYT, Murray, p. 12, and Massa, pp. 17-18).

 

[73] Even earthquakes, which have produced some partial collapses, have never produced total collapses.

 

[74] ?[F]ederal investigators concluded that it had been primarily the impact of the planes and, more specifically, the extreme fires that spread in their wake, that had caused the buildings to fall. . . . After the planes hit, . . . [m]uch of the spray-on fireproofing in the impact zone was dislodged, leaving the structural steel exposed and mortally vulnerable to the intense heat? (Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, p. 252). These co-authors (p. 253) even endorse NIST?s claim?-which is totally unsupported (Hoffman, 2005)--that the collapses became ?inevitable.?

 

[75] Dwyer, in fact, wrote an article entitled ?Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11,? New York Times, August 13, 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.html ?ex=1131339600&en=e619ef623287178f&ei=5070). But he did not mention the ?new view? that would be suggested by the testimonies about explosions.

 

[76] Silverstein?s statement has been quoted in many places, including Morgan and Henshall (2005). A critique of this book entitled ?9/11 Revealed? New Book Repeats False Conspiracy Theories,? put out by the U.S. State Department (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html), claims that ?[t]he property owner was referring to pulling a contingent of firefighters out of the building in order to save lives because it appeared unstable.? But that is hardly a plausible interpretation, especially given the following sentence and the fact that elsewhere during the documentary (PBS, 2002), we hear the expression clearly used to mean ?bring the building down.?

 

[77] Silverstein?s statement can be viewed (http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV) or heard on audio file (http://VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3). For a discussion, see Baker, n.d.

 

[78] Currid, incidentally, was re-elected president in 2002 (http://www.uniondemocracy.com/UDR/34-NYC%20Public%20Employees.htm). 

 

[79] Letter to the LA Times Magazine, September 18, 2005, by William Yarchin of Huntington Beach, California, in response to an interview with me in that magazine, conducted by Mark Ehrman, entitled ?Getting Agnostic about 9/11,? published August 28, 2005.

 

 

 

REFERENCES
 

Baker, Jeremy, n.d. ?PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,? Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).

 

Barter, Sheila, 2001. ?How the World Trade Center Fell,? BBC News, September 13 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm).

 

Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. ?Some Survivors Say ?Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,?? American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html).

 

__________, 2002. ?New York Firefighters? Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11,? American Free Press, August 9 (http://americanfreepress.net/08_09_02/New_York_Firefighters__/ new_york_firefighters.html).

 

_____, 2004. ?New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation,? American Free Press, updated April 12.

 

_____, 2005a. ?9/11 and Chertoff: Cousin Wrote 9/11 Propaganda for PM,? Rumor Mill News, March 4 (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=66176).

 

_____, 2005b. ?The Hidden Hand of the C.I.A. and the 9/11 Propaganda of Popular Mechanics,? American Free Press, March 19 (http://www.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm).

 

Borger, Julian, Duncan Campbell, Charlie Porter, and Stuart Millar, 2001. ?Special Report: Terrorism in the US,? Guardian, September 12 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,600839,00.html).

 

Brannigan, Francis L., Glenn P. Corbett, and Vincent Dunn, 2002. ?WTC ?Investigation??: A Call to Action? Fire Engineering, January (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm ?Section=ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=133211&VERSION_NUM=1&p=25).

 

Burns, Maggie, 2003. ?Secrecy Surrounds a Bush Brother?s Role in 9/11 Security,? American Reporter, 9/2021, January 20.

 

Bush, George W., 2001. Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, November 10.

 

Chief Engineer, The, 2002. ?We will Not Forget: A Day of Terror? (http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029)

 

Dwyer, Jim, 2005a. ?Vast Archive Yields New View of 9/11,? New York Times, August 13 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13records.html ?pagewanted=print).

 

_____, 2005b. ?City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today,? New York Times, August 12.

 

Dwyer, Jim, and Ford Fessenden, 2002. ?Lost Voices of Firefighters, Some on 78th Floor,? New York Times, August 4 (http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_lostvoicesfiredept.html).

 

Dwyer, Jim, and Kevin Flynn, 2005. 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers, New York: Times Books.

 

Eagar, Thomas, 2002. ?The Collapse: An Engineer?s Perspective,? which is part of ?Why the Towers Fell,? NOVA, April 30 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html).

 

Eagar, Thomas, and Christopher Musso, 2001. ?Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation,? JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, 53/12, pp. 8-11.

 

Else, Liz, 2004. ?Baltimore Blasters,? New Scientist 183/2457 (July 24): p. 48 (http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp  ?rp=1&id=mg18324575.700). The reason for the title is that the office of Controlled Demolition, Inc., is near Baltimore.

 

Emigh, Jacqueline, 2002. ?GPS on the Job in Massive World Trade Center Clean-Up,? July 1 (http://securitysolutions.com/ar/security_gps_job_massive).

 

FEMA (1988). ?Interstate Bank Building Fire, Los Angeles, California? (http://www.lafire.com//famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/ FEMA-TecReport/FEMA-report.htm).

 

FEMA, 1991. ?High-Rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania? (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:CHrKDNvrjsEJ:www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/ Tr-049.pdf+High-Rise+Office+Building+Fire+One+Meridian+Plaza&hl=en&client=safari).

 

FEMA, 2002. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm).

 

Field, Andy, 2004. ?A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse,? Firehouse.com, February 7 (http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807).

 

Fink, Mitchell, and Lois Mathias, 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.

 

Firehouse Magazine, 2002a. ?WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden,? April (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html).

 

Firehouse Magazine, 2002b. ?WTC: This Is Their Story: Interview with Captain Chris Boyle,? August (www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html).

 

Fleck, John, 2001. ?Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says,? Albuquerque Journal, September 21 (http://www.abqjournal.com/terror/anniversary/pmvan09-21-01.htm).

 

Fink, Mitchell, and Lois Mathias, 2002. Never Forget: An Oral History of September 11, 2001. New York: Harper Collins.

 

Geyh, Allison, 2001. Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall.

 

Glanz, James. 2001. ?Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,? New York Times, November 29.

 

Glanz, James, and Eric Lipton, 2002. ?Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,? New York Times, March 29.

 

Glover, Norman, 2002. ?Collapse Lessons,? Fire Engineering, October (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm ?Section=Archi&Subsection=Display&P=25&ARTICLE_ID=163411&KEYWORD=norman %20glover).

 

Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).

 

___________, 2005a. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).

 

_________, 2005b. ?9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?? 9/11 CitizensWatch, May 7 (http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php? op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=535).

 

_____________, 2005c. ?9/11 and the Mainstream Press,? 9/11 Visibility Project, July 29 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-07-29-pressclub.php).

 

_____, 2005d. "Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report,? Global Outlook, Issue 10 (Spring-Summer), pp. 45-56. Available at www.GlobalOutlook.ca.



Griffin, David Ray, and Peter Dale Scott, eds., 2006. 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).

 

Hansen, Thomas, 2005. "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Report on a Conversation with Philip Zelikow," 9/11 Visibility Project, June 7 (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-06-07-outrageous.php).

 

Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm).

 

History Channel, The, 2002. ?The World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon,? September 8.

 

Hoffman, Jim, 2003. ?The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,? Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html).

 

_____, 2004. ?Your Eyes Don?t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,? 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html).

 

_____, 2005. ?Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,? 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

 

Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analys


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Una]
    #5376749 - 03/08/06 07:42 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Murphy, Dean E., 2002. September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday.



NYT (New York Times), 2005. ?The September 11 Records? (9/11 Oral Histories) (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/ 20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html).



Nieto, Robin, 2004. ?Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela?s Tallest Building,? Venezuelanalysis.com, October 18.



NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology), 2005. Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft), June.



Norman, John, 2002. ?Search and Rescue Operations,? Fire Engineering, October.



Paul, Don, and Jim Hoffman, 2004. Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City. San Francisco: Irresistible/Revolutionary.



People Magazine, 2001. ?Hell On Earth,? September 24.



Popular Mechanics, 2005. ?9/11: Debunking the Myths,? March (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y).



PBS, 2002. ?America Rebuilds? (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds).



Ryan, Kevin, 2004. E-mail letter to Dr. Frank Gayle, Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php).



Samuel, Eugenie, and Damian Carrington, 2001. ?Design Choice for Towers Saved Lives,? New Scientist, September 12 (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1281).



Shepard, Alicia, and Cathy Trost of Newseum, 2002. Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, Foreword by Tom Brokaw. Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.



Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam.



Structural Engineer, The, 2002. September 3.



Szymanski, Greg, 2005a. ?NY Fireman Lou Cacchioli Upset that 9/11 Commission 'Tried to Twist My Words,?? Arctic Beacon, July 19 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29548.htm).



_____, 2005b. ?WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High,? Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm).



Taylor, Curtis L., and Sean Gardiner, 2001. ?Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted,? New York Newsday, September 12 (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,6794009.story).



Trimpe, Herb, 2002. "The Chaplain's Tale," Times-Herald Record (http://www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm).



Unger, Craig, 2004. House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship between the World?s Two Most Powerful Dynasties. New York & London: Scribner.



Uyttebrouck, Olivier, 2001. ?Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says,? Albuquerque Journal, September 11 (http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal).



Walsh, Trudy, 2002. "Handheld APP Eased Recovery Tasks," Government Computer News, Vol. 21, No. 27a, September 11 (http://www.gcn.com/21_27a/news/19930-1.html).



Watson, Paul Joseph, and Dan Perez, 2004. Prison Planet.TV, May 5 (http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/050504bombsinwtc.htm).



Williams, James, 2001. ?WTC a Structural Success,? SEAU NEWS: The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October.


--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5376870 - 03/08/06 08:47 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
The only two conspiracies from 9/11 that I can believe might be true are:

1) Flight 93 was shot down
2) Tower 7 was pulled down

If Tower 7 was indeed pulled down, I suspect it was pulled down for safety and is being kept quite for insurance reasons, not because of some US/terrorists/Bush/neocon plot to take over the world.


How interesting.

Let's just leave flight 93 aside here, it's one of the less interesting issues (although I'd like to add your bowling ball analogy was utter bullshit: just try to crash a bowling ball, or a plane, for that matter, on a soft grassy field and see if it bursts into small pieces over a large area).

Why exactly can you believe WTC7 was taken down? Probable answer: because it's so obvious it's undeniable. OK, anyway: if you admit it was taken down, you've got some explaining to do as to when the demolition was planned and prepared. If you try to contend the demolition was decided, planned, prepared and carried out on the day itself, expect some loud laughs.

But I just now realize we've already had this same argument a long time ago (I thought I'd had it with Cervantes), so if you've got nothing new to add, let's just leave it at this. If someone else thinks it was possible to achieve an improvised demolition of WTC7 in such a smooth way and under the emergency conditions of that day, I'm curious to hear how it could have been done (and why the hurry, as the area was evacuated?). But make sure to read the old thread first to avoid unnecessary arguments.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5377002 - 03/08/06 09:35 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I feel the Popular Mechanics article being brought up soon, so i'd better post this (from the article above):

Quote:


[35] This article in Popular Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly bad. Besides the problems pointed out here and in note 11, above, and note 39, below, the article makes this amazing claim: ?In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.? In reality, as genuine 9/11 researchers know, the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. By extrapolation, we can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters over 1000 times in the decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular Mechanics could be true only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne Stewart incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually intercepted the aircraft in question. This is a most unlikely possibility, especially in light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that ?[NORAD?S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft? (Johnson, 2001).

As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article?s ?senior researcher? was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (see Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, 2005b). Young Chertoff?s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,? Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics? Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,? 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html, and Peter Meyer, ?Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,? http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject.




--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5377961 - 03/08/06 03:40 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Heh, I read the whole thread, and it's funny how you "ran out of time to do the rest" when the rest amounted to tackle the WTC7 issue, of which you said from the beginning that you kept that one for later. Later never came...  :shocked:

For me as for many others, as I said before in other threads, WTC7 was the one that toppled me over to looking into the rest of it. And really, if you consider that issue along with all aspects of the style of the three collapses, there's no doubt possible.

Just one example: when critics of the government version argue that there were no ingredients to make the fires hot enough to melt the steel, its supporters go on to say you only needed temps high enough to make the steel lose its structural strength, which means: make it bend. If the steel just bent, the collapse would have been relatively slow (meaning: definitely slower than freefall), progressive and irregular.

I wonder how you can imagine that the combination of:
- instant onset of collapse,
- regular and vertical fall at freefall speed,
- complete destruction of towers almost down to ground level (where are the 47 huge steel central columns?),
- reduction of all the concrete to powder, and
- the presence of molten and yellow hot metal up to six weeks after the fact,
is possible in the frame of the official government story.




I spent about three hours watching some of the video n13 referenced and typing up everything. His response was "it seems rational but everything presented coherantly can seem that way." I was intending to finish up everything and then dicuss wtc7 but really what the fuck was the point if he is just going to pull that same crap. He couldn't even try and refute any of my points. Wasting a few more hours of my valuble time did not seem right. Do you honestly think he even deserves my response after his lame followup to lengthy posts? But maybe i will still finish it, I'd like to.

You people need to shut the fuck up about the fact that the collapses looked like controlled demos. SO THE FUCK WHAT. It proves absolutely nothing. Get some fucking evidence or something; not, "oh, well it looks like one." Its pathetic. And if i get to discussing wtc7 my main points would rest on structural damage, the tanks of diesel held within the building, and the length of time the fires burned for. I can pose a much more rational series of events than, "oh, it looked a lot like a controlled demo, so it was one."

And about your last point: an  intial 45,000+ tons and a transfer of energy. Why do you think all of those things you listed can't happen? Do you have reason better than your hunch?

You make all kinds of unfounded presumptions as to restrict the possible events that may have happned to what you want it to be. You also lie twice or are just ignorant. All of the concrete was not turned to powder and the towers did not fall at free fall speed.

Also the pool of molten slag proves the towers collapsed under their own weight after its structure was weakened. Try and explain their creation through any other way than a transfer of energy.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5378047 - 03/08/06 04:08 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)



--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5380058 - 03/09/06 01:48 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

d33p said:
You people need to shut the fuck up about the fact that the collapses looked like controlled demos. SO THE FUCK WHAT. It proves absolutely nothing. Get some fucking evidence or something; not, "oh, well it looks like one." Its pathetic.


Hah! Evidence! The one thing only the government could have gathered from the crime scene. That is so cheap. Of course we'll never get material evidence, it was all disposed of by the 'investigators'.
When a death looks just slightly suspicious, the standard procedure is to start a criminal investigation, which involves leaving the crime scene intact until everything is examined. That is also why criminals always try to wipe out as much evidence as possible. In this case, it seems the government was both criminal and investigator, so it could wipe out the evidence in plain sight. Is there another explanation for the disposal of almost everything found at the crime scene? The burden of proof and explanation is on the official side here, precisely because they're the ones who got rid of all the evidence.

Quote:

And if i get to discussing wtc7 my main points would rest on structural damage, the tanks of diesel held within the building, and the length of time the fires burned for.


Don't waste your energy, FEMA tried it that way and had to admit it was extremely improbable. Given half a chance, they would have promoted this one as the only possible explanation. If they themselves admit it's unlikely, you can bet it's totally impossible.

Quote:

And about your last point: an  intial 45,000+ tons and a transfer of energy. Why do you think all of those things you listed can't happen? Do you have reason better than your hunch?


I agree with Nietzsche13 from the other forum on this one:
Quote:

If this method could explain those facts, someone would have already figured this out and it would be part of the official explanation. Those are some bright people and if something can be done within the boundaries that have been established, then it will.


I don't think you realize what's required to obtain temperatures of over 1500?C or 2000?C. The energy transfer of the falling building is way too diffuse to achieve anything near it. Really, find something else, this looks way too contrived (and you're the one talking about a "hunch" :grin:). Let me return you one of your statements, it fits you great:
Quote:

You make all kinds of unfounded presumptions as to restrict the possible events that may have happned to what you want it to be.


Do a search to find instances where collapsing buildings produced molten metal, and do the same one for explosives. That should be instructive.

Quote:

All of the concrete was not turned to powder


Watch the film "9/11 revisited" online, and go to about 1/6 of its length (sorry, no timecodes here). Let me quote:
Quote:

Narrator: The building collpapsed to dust. [...]
George Pataki (governor of New York), at Ground Zero: And you look, and you see there's no concrete, there's very little concrete. All you see is aluminum and steel.
Reporter: What happened to the concrete?
George Pataki: The concrete was pulverized. I was down here on Tuesday, and it was like you were on a foreign planet. All of lower Manhattan, not just this site, from river to river, there was dust powder, 2-3 inches thick. The concrete was just pulverized.


See, you don't even have to take my word for it...

Quote:

and the towers did not fall at free fall speed.


You're right about that one. I should've written: "near freefall speed". But then, freefall speed is calculated in vacuum conditions, and according to my sources, there was atmospheric resistance in New York on 9/11. So this could explain why it was only near freefall speed.

From www.physics911.net:
About WTC7:
Quote:

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.



About the Twin Towers:
Quote:

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.


Again, don't take my word for it, you can easily compute those calculations for yourself. And please do so before calling me an ignorant liar.

Quote:

Try and explain their creation through any other way than a transfer of energy.


Of course it was a transfer of energy, it's just that I highly doubt the energy came from the falling towers. There must have been some huge additional source. See above for my take on this issue.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5380253 - 03/09/06 04:47 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

> Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

You do real good until the above statement, at which point your argument falls apart. The key word in here is "seemed". In other words, "it is a guess" and a guess can be correct or incorrect. A guess is unknown. To turn a guess into a fact is a huge ethical error in science.

Ignore all the WTC stuff, and all the conspiracy stuff, and work with me through a simple thought experiment...

Think about putting a nail into a block of wood with a hammer. You set the nail against the wood, and then smack it with the hammer from a distance. You do not set the nail against the wood, the hammer against the nail, and then push the nail in with the hammer.

Why does the first method work well, and the second method does not? With the first method, I can pound a nail into a block of wood in almost no time at all with one good solid swing up the hammer. With the second method, I can push on the hammer all day and the nail still doesn't budge.

Now lets go back and think about the WTC towers falling... but think of the top floors as the head of the hammer and the bottom floors as the nail. Once the top floors started to move, the bottom floors didn't stand a chance, the same way the nail didn't stand a chance against the swung hammer. If the building had been solid, then the second anallogy would apply... a hammer pushing on a nail... but the towers were mostly open space and glass held up by a bit of steel and concrete, just like the air between the hammer and the nail in the first analogy.

> it's just that I highly doubt the energy came from the falling towers.

The potential energy that was in the towers before they fell had to go somewhere... each tower had a mass of around 5x10^8 kg with a height of about 411 m, resulting in the potential energy around 10^12 J for each tower. The majority of this energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below the tower as the tower fell. The same energy could power almost five million 60-watt light bulbs for one hour. That is a lot of work taken over the handfull of seconds that it took the tower to drop.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5380339 - 03/09/06 06:40 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Yes analogies... what do they prove when you get them wrong?

I understand what you mean with your hammer and nail, but get it correct then. Let's assume the pancake theory is right. If the 47 central steel beams of the tower failed at the same moment at the level where the plane came in (how likely is that?), then the upper part of the tower came down one floor, which then failed, falling on the next, which failed as well, etc. There are a few problems here:

1. In your analogy, this means lifting the hammer about an inch and then hitting. There was no huge momentum like if you hit the hammer full force from as far as you can. There was the force of the weight, of course (but the lower part of the building had withstood that for decades and was designed to hold up more), but there was little momentum. Wrong analogy.

2. Lacking the momentum, the successive failure of the dozens of floors would definitely and significantly slow down the process. We have near freefall speed here.

3. Where has the upper part of the building gone? If the part above the plane impact remained strong enough to make all the floors fail until ground level, how do you explain it collapsed onto itself once it hit ground level? Surely if it had not remained intact, we should have extremely large debris here. Yet everything was smashed to small pieces.
Also, the contrary force of the successive floor failures should have broken the fall of the upper parts of each tower, decreasing its momentum until it would simply stop falling and remain there on a huge pile of pancaked floors. Instead of that, there were just huge clouds and piles of dust, but no large remaining chunks. Have you ever seen a building that pancaked, from an earthquake, for instance? You can still count the floors pressed against each other. It's like some  giant stepped on them and flattened them, but they don't just crumble to dust. You can still see the layers.
Another one about upper parts: on the South Tower collapse, you can see the upper part starting to topple over, which means initially it had a sideways support point which formed the axis of the toppling (sorry about the sloppy explanation, I don't know how to word this in English, but I guess you see my point). If the failure was initially asymmetric, how did it suddenly, in the course of the fall, become symmetric so that you see the tilting movement stop, the upper part that initially tilted fall straight down for a short while, before disappearing altogether. Isn't this kinda strage, considering the laws of physics? (I know, they've been abused quite a lot...)

4. How does the central core fit into the pancaking, and how come it failed down to ground level? That just doesn't make sense. David Ray Griffin has a nice analogy (again :grin:) for this in "9/11 revisited" (it's just past half the movie, if you watch it you'll see tell-tale graphic animations and pics):
Quote:

The other problem is: what happened to the 47 massive steel columns, that constituted the core of each of these twin towers? They were the weight-bearing structures of each tower. Even if the pancake theory were true, those 47 steel beams should have been sticking out at least several hundred feet into the air, just like the old phonograph, where sometimes the 78 records would collapse, with the spindle still sticking up in the air. It should have 47 spindles still sticking up in the air.


Ever thought about that? I had, and I was glad to find someone had explained it so clearly. Can you imagine the strength of the central core of the towers near ground level? And explain how this core just vanished down to about ground level?

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
You do real good until the above statement, at which point your argument falls apart. The key word in here is "seemed". In other words, "it is a guess" and a guess can be correct or incorrect. A guess is unknown. To turn a guess into a fact is a huge ethical error in science.


Yeah, that's it, pick on the words. I didn't write that, it was a quote. IMHO, the word "seemed" is a tongue in cheek understatement. I'm pretty sure the author would have written "is definitely" if his irony mode had been off. If this is the worst weakness in my argument, I consider I've won.  :rolleyes:

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
The majority of this energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below the tower as the tower fell.


It's strange that you would put heat in the first place. I think most would have been absorbed by material rupture, and then some heat. But even if the majority was heat, that doesn't account for the concentration of that heat on small parts of the metal. How can you get more than 2000? in some very specific places (not all the steel melted, far from), and about normal temps elsewhere? Why would the whole energy transfer from a falling building concentrate on relatively minute spots? And if a normal fire burns at about 600?C, how do you get more than 2000?C from a collapsing building? Why do you never get those temperatures in buildings that collapse from earthquakes?
In a word, stop spawning theories out of your ass until you can slightly substantiate them with at least a hint of factual info.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleUna
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5380368 - 03/09/06 07:13 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


How can you get more than 2000? in some very specific places




Possibly with thermite (Fe2O3 + Al).

Watch this movie showing molten metal pouring out of the South Tower just before it collapsed, and remember that jet fuel and office inventory can not produce a hot enough fire to cause this.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm



--------------------
www.911blogger.com


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Una]
    #5380595 - 03/09/06 09:37 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

> Possibly with thermite

I wouldn't argue against thermite... unlike explosives, thermite is a real possibility.

> Yeah, that's it, pick on the words.

It isn't the words... it is the meaning of the words. The points made were nice and scientific until a GUESS was inserted... and treated as if the guess were a scientific fact. Misleading, and unethical. It isn't the words I am picking on, but the misleading slight going from fact to guess.

> In a word, stop spawning theories out of your ass until you can slightly substantiate them with at least a hint of factual info.

Be very careful. Debate the topic, not the poster. The statement about where the energy went came from a report released by Eduardo Kausel, a Civil and Environmental Engineering professor at MIT.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Seuss]
    #5380890 - 03/09/06 11:13 AM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Well, I'd love some further reference to said report. It definitely looks interesting.

No comments about my other points? You just agree then...?
And if you deem thermite "a real possibility", who do you think would have placed it there?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5381994 - 03/09/06 04:21 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Hah! Evidence! The one thing only the government could have gathered from the crime scene. That is so cheap. Of course we'll never get material evidence, it was all disposed of by the 'investigators'.
When a death looks just slightly suspicious, the standard procedure is to start a criminal investigation, which involves leaving the crime scene intact until everything is examined. That is also why criminals always try to wipe out as much evidence as possible. In this case, it seems the government was both criminal and investigator, so it could wipe out the evidence in plain sight. Is there another explanation for the disposal of almost everything found at the crime scene? The burden of proof and explanation is on the official side here, precisely because they're the ones who got rid of all the evidence.




Well at least you got your tin foil hat prepared. Why would the events look suspicious to the government? What evidence did they get rid of. It is their assertion there was a valid explanation and that the debris was just scrap to be sold. They can't throw away evidence which doesnt exist. Can you honestly say the day it happened when you went to sleep you were thinking, "the american government was behind this, an official investigation must be launched!"?

Quote:

Don't waste your energy, FEMA tried it that way and had to admit it was extremely improbable. Given half a chance, they would have promoted this one as the only possible explanation. If they themselves admit it's unlikely, you can bet it's totally impossible.




Reference FEMA saying the time line of events they proposed were extremely improbable. I think you were fooled into thinking what someone else added into the report was originally there.

Quote:

I don't think you realize what's required to obtain temperatures of over 1500?C or 2000?C. The energy transfer of the falling building is way too diffuse to achieve anything near it. Really, find something else, this looks way too contrived (and you're the one talking about a "hunch" :grin:). Do a search to find instances where collapsing buildings produced molten metal, and do the same one for explosives. That should be instructive.




The molten slag is a red herring. Cite a controlled demolition that results in large pools of molten slag. You won't be able to find any. If thermite were used there would be very large deposits of Al2O3 and Fe which were not found. And you think its too diffuse, that doesn't make it so. And yes i admit this is my guess but it seems rational and fits with what occurred, unlike your fantasies.


Quote:

See, you don't even have to take my word for it...




Umm one of the guys you quoted even said you could see concrete.... Are you seriously trying to tell me there were no chunks of concrete anywhere. I don't doubt there was not much though.

Quote:

You're right about that one. I should've written: "near freefall speed". But then, freefall speed is calculated in vacuum conditions, and according to my sources, there was atmospheric resistance in New York on 9/11. So this could explain why it was only near freefall speed.




What atmospheric resistance existed to cause a discrepancy in time like this? You think it could not have fallen that fast, because it seems like it shouldn't. I think it could have fallen that fast due to the mass involved and structural integrity of the joist brackets used.

Quote:

From www.physics911.net:
About WTC7:
Quote:

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we're supposed to believe that each floor of the building "pancaked" on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?
Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.



About the Twin Towers:
Quote:

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.


Again, don't take my word for it, you can easily compute those calculations for yourself. And please do so before calling me an ignorant liar.




If you want to get technical, wtc7 took about a minute to collapse. Maybe you should actually read FEMA's wtc7 report. Neither of us are qualified to judge for ourselves if they could have fallen that fast. The idea that they must have been demos because they looked like one and fell rather fast is laughable. And it seems impossible? Why, is it because of your unfounded presumptions on the collapse of buildings? I said either ignorant or a liar. According to you, you were just wrong. I forgive you.

Quote:

Of course it was a transfer of energy, it's just that I highly doubt the energy came from the falling towers. There must have been some huge additional source. See above for my take on this issue.




All you can do is doubt it for no substantiated reason. There is no way explosives or thermite cause them.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Aldous]
    #5382204 - 03/09/06 05:15 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Yes analogies... what do they prove when you get them wrong?

I understand what you mean with your hammer and nail, but get it correct then. Let's assume the pancake theory is right. If the 47 central steel beams of the tower failed at the same moment at the level where the plane came in (how likely is that?), then the upper part of the tower came down one floor, which then failed, falling on the next, which failed as well, etc. There are a few problems here:

1. In your analogy, this means lifting the hammer about an inch and then hitting. There was no huge momentum like if you hit the hammer full force from as far as you can. There was the force of the weight, of course (but the lower part of the building had withstood that for decades and was designed to hold up more), but there was little momentum. Wrong analogy.

2. Lacking the momentum, the successive failure of the dozens of floors would definitely and significantly slow down the process. We have near freefall speed here.

3. Where has the upper part of the building gone? If the part above the plane impact remained strong enough to make all the floors fail until ground level, how do you explain it collapsed onto itself once it hit ground level? Surely if it had not remained intact, we should have extremely large debris here. Yet everything was smashed to small pieces.
Also, the contrary force of the successive floor failures should have broken the fall of the upper parts of each tower, decreasing its momentum until it would simply stop falling and remain there on a huge pile of pancaked floors. Instead of that, there were just huge clouds and piles of dust, but no large remaining chunks. Have you ever seen a building that pancaked, from an earthquake, for instance? You can still count the floors pressed against each other. It's like some  giant stepped on them and flattened them, but they don't just crumble to dust. You can still see the layers.
Another one about upper parts: on the South Tower collapse, you can see the upper part starting to topple over, which means initially it had a sideways support point which formed the axis of the toppling (sorry about the sloppy explanation, I don't know how to word this in English, but I guess you see my point). If the failure was initially asymmetric, how did it suddenly, in the course of the fall, become symmetric so that you see the tilting movement stop, the upper part that initially tilted fall straight down for a short while, before disappearing altogether. Isn't this kinda strage, considering the laws of physics? (I know, they've been abused quite a lot...)

4. How does the central core fit into the pancaking, and how come it failed down to ground level? That just doesn't make sense. David Ray Griffin has a nice analogy (again :grin:) for this in "9/11 revisited" (it's just past half the movie, if you watch it you'll see tell-tale graphic animations and pics):
Quote:

The other problem is: what happened to the 47 massive steel columns, that constituted the core of each of these twin towers? They were the weight-bearing structures of each tower. Even if the pancake theory were true, those 47 steel beams should have been sticking out at least several hundred feet into the air, just like the old phonograph, where sometimes the 78 records would collapse, with the spindle still sticking up in the air. It should have 47 spindles still sticking up in the air.


Ever thought about that? I had, and I was glad to find someone had explained it so clearly. Can you imagine the strength of the central core of the towers near ground level? And explain how this core just vanished down to about ground level?

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
You do real good until the above statement, at which point your argument falls apart. The key word in here is "seemed". In other words, "it is a guess" and a guess can be correct or incorrect. A guess is unknown. To turn a guess into a fact is a huge ethical error in science.


Yeah, that's it, pick on the words. I didn't write that, it was a quote. IMHO, the word "seemed" is a tongue in cheek understatement. I'm pretty sure the author would have written "is definitely" if his irony mode had been off. If this is the worst weakness in my argument, I consider I've won.  :rolleyes:

Quote:

Seuss wrote:
The majority of this energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below the tower as the tower fell.


It's strange that you would put heat in the first place. I think most would have been absorbed by material rupture, and then some heat. But even if the majority was heat, that doesn't account for the concentration of that heat on small parts of the metal. How can you get more than 2000? in some very specific places (not all the steel melted, far from), and about normal temps elsewhere? Why would the whole energy transfer from a falling building concentrate on relatively minute spots? And if a normal fire burns at about 600?C, how do you get more than 2000?C from a collapsing building? Why do you never get those temperatures in buildings that collapse from earthquakes?
In a word, stop spawning theories out of your ass until you can slightly substantiate them with at least a hint of factual info.




analogies are stupid

1. Yea it was a bad analogy but you're idea of the situation is not correct. When the first floor collapsed 45,000+ tons fell 10 feet onto the lower floor. Only the weak part which were the joist brackets(rated to withstand 1,300 tons more than their weight) had to fail, causing that floor to fall.

2. The resistance would not have been significant IMO.

3. Basically dropping 45,000 tons worth of floors from 1360 feet is significant. It does not surprise me that not much was left. If it was a controlled demo, why these floors be gone anyway?
      They should have broken the fall of the upper parts of each tower, decreasing its momentum until it would simply stop falling and remain there on a huge pile of pancaked floors? No they should not have. You seem to have difficultly grasping that the towers were not designed like the average concrete or concrete/steel building. There existed a weak point, joist brackets, and this allowed for such a fast collapse that was relatively unimpeded. You compassion of the collapse to that of a concrete building in an earthquake is retarded. Let me say that one more time, retarded.
      The south tower collapsed due to weakened and completely destroyed columns of support. Due to the location of the plane crash, the east side was more damaged and it collapsed in  this direction. When this fell 10 feet onto lower floor, the brackets failed on that floor all at once and that entire floor came down onto the next floor and so on. The central core columns which would have bent but not snapped would have prevented these upper floors from falling any further to the east and outside of the buildings footprint once the collapse of the whole building began. This only proves that the planes caused the initial collapse beyond a shadow of a doubt. Is it now your insinuation that once they saw this initial collapse someone pressed a button to cause a controlled demo? Why would they do this?

no laws of physics were broken

4. Not surprising this doesn't make sense to you. That analogy is horrible. You debase seuss's analogy and then cite this crap, come on now. When the building began to collapse the core was still connected to the rest of the building by the top floors even though it was separating from the now collapsing floors at the joist brackets. As this massive amount of weight came down it twisted and bent the core taking it down with it. They were never designed or expected to withstand these kind of collapsing forces. Why you think they could have, i have no fucking idea. This transfer of energy that twisted and manipulated the columns brought down the core resulting in large pools of molten slag IMO.

Seuss was wrong actually, you were never doing real good. Your whole argument is based on things looking like other things and your ignorant common sense/presumptions about the collapse of the towers and buildings in general.

IMO the transfer of energy between the building collapsing and the core and other supporting columns was the cause of pools of molten slag. Depending on how each column was twisted and manipulated in the collapse some would have absorbed more energy than others resulting in difference. No one is saying the fire melted steel. The amount of energy involved in the collapse was astronomical, get that through your head. Has the wtc towers ever collapsed before? Stop making idiotic comparisons. And again how do you explain the creation of large pools of molten steel with CTs?

And yea, your posts are just filled to the brim with factual info. You sure are a hypocrite.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!

Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5382516 - 03/09/06 06:31 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Well at least you got your tin foil hat prepared. Why would the events look suspicious to the government? What evidence did they get rid of. It is their assertion there was a valid explanation and that the debris was just scrap to be sold. They can't throw away evidence which doesnt exist.




WTC 7 was the first steel skyscraper to ever collapse from a fire. I think engineers would like to know why so they could prevent it from happening. The magazine Fire Engineering sent a letter to the goverment demanding that they stop destroying the evidence so they could determin what went wrong.

Anyway I decided that there is alot of unexplaned stuff about 9/11 but that dosn't mean the goverment did it. The only thing I have setteld on is that the Goverment is using too much secrecy in concealing many things about the 9/11 attacks. Like videos of the pentagon being hit, black boxes, and flight manifests.


Edited by Turn (03/09/06 06:33 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: Turn]
    #5382627 - 03/09/06 07:07 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

I think you are underestimating the damage done to wtc7. I think it was a combination of fire damage that got worse due to the tanks of diesel and quite a bit of structural damage. Here are the only two photos i could find showing the damage and they are not that great. I've heard reports of firefighters detailing that quite a bit was scooped out at the bottom and there was a gash on the face of the south side.

click on them for bigger pics





These are some clear pictures created by NIST.













--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5385512 - 03/10/06 01:03 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

[Edit: I cut my post in two parts, and it seems to work]

Quote:

d33p said:
Well at least you got your tin foil hat prepared. Why would the events look suspicious to the government? What evidence did they get rid of. It is their assertion there was a valid explanation and that the debris was just scrap to be sold.


Don't pretend you don't understand what I meant. When I say "looks suspicious" (about a single death case), I mean of course "looks like it could be a crime, and not natural death". From the moment you have a (suspected) crime, standard mandatory procedure is to start a criminal investigation, in which everything found at the crime scene is considered evidence. Whoever engineered 9/11, it was obviously a vicious crime and not an accident, so a criminal investigation should have been started and not a single crime scene exhibit should have been disposed of without close examination. What the government did to the crime scene was a criminal offense in itself.
And yes, even when a crime looks very obvious and everybody saw who did it, a criminal investigation is required.

Quote:

Reference FEMA saying the time line of events they proposed were extremely improbable. I think you were fooled into thinking what someone else added into the report was originally there.


The following is from the FEMA report about WTC7. Again, don't pretend you've never read this, it's been quoted all over. It has nothing to do with a timeline, but with FEMA's theory of what caused the collapse of WTC7. They propose, as you do, fires, debris and fuel tanks, but admit themselves this theory doesn't seem acceptable. They just propose the only thing they can think of, but undermine it themselves by expressing major doubt. In a word, they admit they haven't got a clue.
Quote:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.




Quote:

If thermite were used there would be very large deposits of Al2O3 and Fe which were not found.


Correction: "which were not looked for".

Quote:

Umm one of the guys you quoted even said you could see concrete....


Wow, you're really grasping at straws here. The main thing they were conveying was: the concrete has mostly been pulverized. If you dispute that, you're really far gone.

Quote:

When the first floor collapsed 45,000+ tons fell 10 feet onto the lower floor. Only the weak part which were the joist brackets(rated to withstand 1,300 tons more than their weight) had to fail, causing that floor to fall.


So you're saying the strong part, i.e. the 47 central support columns, did NOT have to fail. But if it didn't, why was it pulverized?


Edited by Aldous (03/11/06 03:25 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 964
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 15 days, 4 hours
Re: 9/11 Questions [Re: d33p]
    #5389528 - 03/11/06 03:27 PM (14 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

2. The resistance would not have been significant IMO.
3. Basically dropping 45,000 tons worth of floors from 1360 feet is significant. It does not surprise me that not much was left.


That's just your opinion then. The (lower part of the) building was very strong, since it had sustained the upper part for years. You don't seem to understand that the very weight of the building, which you take as an argument for the forces of destruction, was also what guaranteed its solidity. Imagine the huge forces throughout the building that kept it together for years. Imagine the incredible forces it takes to tear it as completely apart as it was on that day. Its mere weight doesn't account for that. It can account for a failure here or there, that could even make the building topple or maybe collapse, but not pulverize it like it was, and not in a matter of seconds.
And it?s not like if you dropped 45,000 tons from 1360 feet with nothing in between. That?s a blatant misrepresentation.

Quote:

There existed a weak point, joist brackets, and this allowed for such a fast collapse that was relatively unimpeded.


That weak point, provided it was real, was purely internal. The joist brackets supposedly broke loose from the outer steel structure and from the inner steel columns. This does not account for the breaking of the steel in small pieces (not supposed to happen) on the outside, and for the vanishing of the inner steel columns. The phonograph analogy is still valid here.

Quote:

You compassion [sic] of the collapse to that of a concrete building in an earthquake is retarded. Let me say that one more time, retarded.


I admit to something of a stretch because of the steel, but it was meant to show that a mere collapse doesn't vaporize concrete. But with the steel taken into account, you're right, because a building could not pancake. Steel doesn't just break, and if it bends under extreme temperatures, the process is progressive, not instant. It's the pancake theory that is retarded.

Quote:

The central core columns which would have bent but not snapped would have prevented these upper floors from falling any further to the east and outside of the buildings footprint once the collapse of the whole building began. [...] As this massive amount of weight came down it twisted and bent the core taking it down with it.


If the core didn't snap, where is it? Where are the huge pieces?

Quote:

Has the wtc towers ever collapsed before?


Actually, no single high rise building had ever unintentionnally entirely collapsed in this fashion before. The fact that 3 of them did that day is only one of the elements that makes the case suspicious.

Quote:

I think you are underestimating the damage done to wtc7. I think it was a combination of fire damage that got worse due to the tanks of diesel and quite a bit of structural damage. Here are the only two photos i could find showing the damage and they are not that great. I've heard reports of firefighters detailing that quite a bit was scooped out at the bottom and there was a gash on the face of the south side.


Neither these explanations or the pictures account for an instant and perfectly symmetrical collapse.
Make up your mind now: did the building fail because "quite a bit was scooped out at the bottom and there was a gash on the face of the south side", and maybe the damage to the southwest corner, or because of internal failure like FEMA says? In the first case, the failure could never have been symmetrical. The second case could be accounted for only by fire (no debris fallen from the outside could have caused internal failure), and that would be a first in history. Neither case accounts for instant, symmetrical collapse.

Quote:

Depending on how each column was twisted and manipulated in the collapse some would have absorbed more energy than others resulting in difference.


What you are saying here is that you think you could melt metal by applying stress to it in the right way. Hm. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Your whole argument is based on [...] your ignorant common sense/presumptions about the collapse of the towers and buildings in general.


Yet another compliment that goes back untouched to it sender.

A few scattered quotes:
Quote:

And yes i admit this is my guess but it seems rational and fits with what occurred, unlike your fantasies.
You think it could not have fallen that fast, because it seems like it shouldn't. I think it could have fallen that fast due to the mass involved and structural integrity of the joist brackets used.
The idea that they must have been demos because they looked like one and fell rather fast is laughable.
The resistance would not have been significant IMO.
Let me say that one more time, retarded.


Hm, I miss real solid arguments throughout. It's mostly: "you think this, you're retarded, I think that, I'm right." Loads of opinions, lack of debatable factual stuff (I know, you'll say the same about me).
I also miss a general impression of good faith on your part, and I fully admit that is 100% subjective opinion. But I'm asking no-one to share it.

I guess I'll leave it at that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore Cultivation Supplies, Injection Grain Bag, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Powder

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Negro Project!!! Ellis Dee 775 5 04/08/02 11:38 PM
by
* Passenger List from 9/11...notice anything weird?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RonoS 8,281 101 08/26/02 04:39 AM
by Rono
* The Middle East. MOoKie 2,555 8 05/22/01 04:02 PM
by Innvertigo
* 2nd amendment to justify shooting pigs?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
dee_N_ae 11,467 131 09/19/02 01:08 PM
by francisco
* Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Evolving 5,693 63 11/01/02 08:19 AM
by Innvertigo
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 5,016 40 03/03/02 09:53 PM
by sparafucile

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,124 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic ]
Search this thread:
Zamnesia.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2020 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.364 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 16 queries.