9/11

[Myth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv6_mdSvZwE

Comments on this?

[rajpoot]

The dude who's uploaded the video has several other rather suspect videos on his channel.
Furthermore the recently found audio tape collection (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33931657) has Bin Laden referring to the attacks indirectly.


It's only in one of the final recordings found in the collection that there is any allusion to 9/11, in a recording of the wedding of Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard, Umar, which was taped a few months before the attacks on New York City and Washington DC."There's a lot of mirth on the tape and then Bin Laden comes up, and it's no longer mirth. He talks about how celebration is important, but it mustn't overshadow more austere issues."
Bin Laden then makes an ominous reference.
"He talks explicitly about 'a plan' - he doesn't reveal details - and how we are 'about to hear news' and he asks God to 'grant our brothers success'," says Miller.
"I understand that to signify the 9/11 attacks [because] he is talking specifically about the United States at that juncture."

I don't know why people want to see conspiracy theories everywhere. I guess it makes it easier for them to hate the government and blame them for everything wrong that ever happens along with the stuff the governments are actually guilty of.

[rory_20_uk]

Given how often companies and governments shred or loose important information / information they no longer need,what exactly is expected? There was a watercolour on the wall saying "I planned it all" and signed in his own blood?

~:smoking:

[Myth]

Given how often companies and governments shred or loose important information / information they no longer need,what exactly is expected? There was a watercolour on the wall saying "I planned it all" and signed in his own blood?

~:smoking:

No, with the blood of small puuppies and babies mixed with chemical weapons from Iraq of coruse.

[Fragony]

Conspiracy theories are always fun. The only question I have is building number 7, that looked like controlled demolition.

[Montmorency]

I don't know, I think Building 4 is the likelier candidate.

That was just fishy.

[Fragony]

I don't think it fishy, I think they were allready expecting it and took measures. Inside-job believers are very high on my total-idiot list.

Edit, you can't do this without anyone knowing about it. Leads to conspracie-theories but it can all be explained, no way the US didn'f know that it was a target, no way the Mossad didn't know as well, and warned Israeli's who work there. Conspiracies are fundamentilay impossible if too many people are in it.

[Strike For The South]

The US government can barley manage a functioning postal service. I doubt they planned 9/11. Not to mention, even if you did mange to pull it off, there are too many variables after the fact. It's not like installing an autocrat in Chile or Iran, you can't be certain all the moving parts are going to move the way you want them.

[Fisherking]

Have not watched the video yet. I will get to it as time allows.

All I will say is that it is the first time in history that a modern hi rise building has been brought down by fire and it, supposedly, happened several times on that one day. Oh, and jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

What ever happened that day, the official explanation is not what happened. It is just what people would accept without too much explanation.

[Husar]

The US government can barley manage a functioning postal service.

That's a funny argument given the NSA revelations. Maybe the postal service just isn't as high a priority.
That still doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job but to claim incompetence based on a single service when other services are incredibly competent is a bit much.

[Montmorency]

That still doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job but to claim incompetence based on a single service when other services are incredibly competent is a bit much.

Well, it depends on what aspects of their performance that your talking about. The NSA isn't much different to the postal service, when comparing the scope of their activities and their budgets.

[Beskar]

The thing about the NSA is that they were doing what everyone suspected they were doing anyway, it was just that they appeared shocked that they actually did do it in front of the Media so they didn't let on they actually knew all along. It is a theme also present in a lot of Hollywood movies, even a Will Smith movie, Enemy of the State pretty much came out saying it was like that.

Anyone who was genuinely surprised and completely unaware was living under a rock.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Also keep in mind that the NSA thing got leaked. If 9/11 was an inside job, they had many more years to do so and it was presumably a far larger operation. No leaks.

[Fragony]

Have not watched the video yet. I will get to it as time allows.

All I will say is that it is the first time in history that a modern hi rise building has been brought down by fire and it, supposedly, happened several times on that one day. Oh, and jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

What ever happened that day, the official explanation is not what happened. It is just what people would accept without too much explanation.

There has been some research on that, if it gets into the shafts it will absolutily cause the damage that makes a collapse possible. I think people should get over it, no matter how horrible it was. That is a really horrible thing to say and I am perfectly aware of that

[Greyblades]

Obligatory;
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/920/293/edc.png

[GeneralHankerchief]

Have not watched the video yet. I will get to it as time allows.

All I will say is that it is the first time in history that a modern hi rise building has been brought down by fire and it, supposedly, happened several times on that one day. Oh, and jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

What ever happened that day, the official explanation is not what happened. It is just what people would accept without too much explanation.

Actual, legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Backup%20of%20Papers/466.pdf) says otherwise (http://winterpatriot.pbworks.com/f/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Jet fuel burns at a minimum of 800 Celsius. Anyone who studies materials science will tell you that that steel was fucked. The yield strength of the steel beams was probably cut in half, which meant it was only a matter of time. Is this not common knowledge?

[Fisherking]

The lowest melting point of any steel is 1370° C. A high yield alloy would have a higher melting point. The fire was not hot enough nor was it long enough to generate a catastrophic failure like that seen that day.

As for peer reviewed papers you can always find people who will go along with most hypothesis. Like Clark said, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

There are more than 2,000 engineers and architects who are members of Engineers & Architects for 911 Truth. Something that would spoil their careers. Before deciding what you believe it is best to examine both sides of the story with an open mind.

[Fragony]

Twin towers where really high, so really heavy. Melting temperature of steel sounds kinda loose to me, bending should do it, temperature for that is much lower, the fire reached the elevator shaft, nothing odd going on

[GeneralHankerchief]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization with questionable credibility at best (https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ae911truth).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The lowest melting point of any steel is 1370° C. A high yield alloy would have a higher melting point. The fire was not hot enough nor was it long enough to generate a catastrophic failure like that seen that day.

As for peer reviewed papers you can always find people who will go along with most hypothesis. Like Clark said, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.

There are more than 2,000 engineers and architects who are members of Engineers & Architects for 911 Truth. Something that would spoil their careers. Before deciding what you believe it is best to examine both sides of the story with an open mind.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not need to melt steel in order to have 80,000 tons of pressure come crashing down. By heating high strength steel even to 800 degrees Celsius the strength of the steel is reduced by a factor of two or more. This is not a government conspiracy, it is basic materials science. Do you even know that when making steel, the iron undergoes several internal structural phase transformations which allows the carbon atoms to penetrate the iron lattice, at which point quenching returns the iron lattice back to a tighter lattice which traps the carbon in interstitial gaps? Why are you trying to argue that steel needs to be heated to 1300+ degrees before failure, as if steel is homogenous and stable all the way up until its melting point? Please stop.

[Fragony]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not need to melt steel in order to have 80,000 tons of pressure come crashing down. By heating high strength steel even to 800 degrees Celsius the strength of the steel is reduced by a factor of two or more. This is not a government conspiracy, it is basic materials science. Do you even know that when making steel, the iron undergoes several internal structural phase transformations which allows the carbon atoms to penetrate the iron lattice, at which point quenching returns the iron lattice back to a tighter lattice which traps the carbon in interstitial gaps? Why are you trying to argue that steel needs to be heated to 1300+ degrees before failure, as if steel is homogenous and stable all the way up until its melting point? Please stop.

^ what he says. Bending is enough it doesn't have to melt, melting temperature is irrelevant. It bends, the weight does the rest.

[Fisherking]

The trouble is that the steel was melted. The buildings pulverised themselves in mid air and came down at free fall speeds in their own footprint. Further, the heating and bending would have to have been uniform throughout the building for all that to occur. There are a great deal of things about the collapse that are highly questionable. Some even defy physics.

I don’t know how they were brought down or who was behind it but the government explanation is insufficient.

[Crandar]

I know nothing about civil-engineering and, to be sincere, I doubt that the destruction of two sky-scrapers would be needed for a sufficient provocation. It looks like an overkill, doesn't it?
That being said, the official War on Terror narrative is definitely fragile and we are presented with a distorted image.

Firstly, I think that the reason behind it are geo-politic interests, like the Iraqi oil being sold and exploited by American companies and not the Iraqi state, not a crusage againt violence and bigotry, and secondly, movies have led us to view wars as a simplified stugggle between us and them.

Well, it usually is more complicated, with temporary alliances, cynical deals under the table, doube agents and conflicting interests.

[Fragony]

The trouble is that the steel was melted. The buildings pulverised themselves in mid air and came down at free fall speeds in their own footprint. Further, the heating and bending would have to have been uniform throughout the building for all that to occur. There are a great deal of things about the collapse that are highly questionable. Some even defy physics.

I don’t know how they were brought down or who was behind it but the government explanation is insufficient.

Demolitian experts here completily ruled out controlled demolition on the Twins, number 4 and 7 are a different story, but wouldn't it be most likely that they already knew this was planned, but were caught by surprise

[a completely inoffensive name]

The trouble is that the steel was melted. The buildings pulverised themselves in mid air and came down at free fall speeds in their own footprint. Further, the heating and bending would have to have been uniform throughout the building for all that to occur. There are a great deal of things about the collapse that are highly questionable. Some even defy physics.

I don’t know how they were brought down or who was behind it but the government explanation is insufficient.

No, the steel did not melt. The molten metal which was found was a slag composed of debris from the tower and aluminum alloy from the plane itself, which does melt at temps far below 800 degrees celcius. What is suspicious about the midsection collapsing under the weight of the top after extensive damage? The bending does not have to be uniform, if a beam or beams broke such that the remaining load exceeded the designed load for the rest, the failure would be cascading and quick. I can run a program to display the first 100,000 prime numbers and MATLAB will show it 'instantly'. But in reality it was generated in a sequence, one at a time.

9/11 truthers are people who are so scared about chaos that they believe all actions must have been directed by some conspiracy in charge of events. The idea that 9/11 was an inside job is more comforting than confronting the idea that death can come at any time for no reason by actors with no interest towards those they effect.

[Risasi]

The thing about the NSA is that they were doing what everyone suspected they were doing anyway, it was just that they appeared shocked that they actually did do it in front of the Media so they didn't let on they actually knew all along. It is a theme also present in a lot of Hollywood movies, even a Will Smith movie, Enemy of the State pretty much came out saying it was like that.

Anyone who was genuinely surprised and completely unaware was living under a rock.

You just had to reference that particular movie. Gene Hackman's character in that movie was born on Sept. 11th. :inquisitive:


"when buildings start blowing up, people's priorities tend to change"

There are other movies where people claim to have found patterns referencing the various combinations of 9 and 11. Life imitating art, imitating life. One can spend many hours falling down those rabbit holes.


As to the topic. I'm not convinced it was an "inside job" so much as "they" had foreknowledge of the plan and just allowed it to happen, only to take advantage of the situation. Much like Pearl Harbor, or the sinking of the Lusitania for example. Never let a good crisis go to waste.


I'm convinced most of the "news" now is just lies. Maybe 90%. Just remember, a good lie is mostly truth. It's probably been that way for a long time. I believe the only thing which has changed is that in the past TPTB used to try and suppress the truth from getting out. Along came other means of communication they couldn't as easily control (printing press, radio waves, internet). Now they obfuscate and deluge people with so much (dis)information anyone who really tries to unravel it end up chasing their own tail or going insane.

I do hope you fellows continue to discuss though. It's quite entertaining...and I'm here to be entertained.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just remember, a good lie is mostly truth.

This is asinine. A good lie is one that comes from a place of repetition and/or authority. People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand that news has always been filtered through the perspective of those that present it. Today's media has an openness never seen before since sources are more open about their biases. Smarten up and realize that Murrow is not going to be holding your hand anymore. You are your own judge for interpreting the world, read both sides and let the adversarial process uncover the truth.

[Risasi]

This is asinine. A good lie is one that comes from a place of repetition and/or authority. People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand that news has always been filtered through the perspective of those that present it. Today's media has an openness never seen before since sources are more open about their biases. Smarten up and realize that Murrow is not going to be holding your hand anymore. You are your own judge for interpreting the world, read both sides and let the adversarial process uncover the truth.

Hmm, interesting. So in other words you are calling me stupid? Why the vitriol? Just because I don't any accept any official story about the 9/11 incident? Whether it's a 9/11 "truther" or the mainstream news media? If I'm supposed to accept the mainstream media which one? The US? France? Al Jazeera? Pravda? BBC?


Since you mention Murrow I'll assume for now you're American? So Brian Williams was unbiased? Yeah, he never lied. And Fox News is fair and balanced too... :rolleyes:

I think you miss my point. You say read both sides and then let adversarial process uncover the truth. Who has time to do that? There are only 24 hours in the day.
I'm saying there are no "both sides". It's all ice cream, you just pick your flavor. And every one of them tastes good, makes you feel good for awhile, but eventually you're going to regret eating it.
Every source is tainted to one degree or another. And the only real agenda you can follow is money, or power...or sex. They are interwoven and you can trade one for another.

As to my "a good lie" comment, that is self evident. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you could explain why Snopes is rife with so many articles marked as status: "mixed" or "multiple"? Many people have fallen for those silly little chain emails. Just imagine how elaborate the lie if you have a media publisher in your pocket.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ACIN is basically correct - it the steel was heated it would buckle, it does not need to melt and the fact that we have TWO forum mods claiming it does or did is something I find disturbing.

Here's a quick vid of the collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo

See all the smoke? The towers were on fire for ages, what happened was the fire spread and as a certain point enough of the steel core of the building was hot enough that there was a cascade failure, then because the outside of the building is fairly rigid it appears to telescope into itself - you can actually see that's not exactly what happened, and n fac the Second tower is coming apart as it collapses.

[Papewaio]

Not all metal is melted and cast. There is a whole industry based on manipulating hot iron and steel.

So steel bends as its gets hotter and at temperatures a person with a bellows can create using coal. Then using a hammer a person can generate enough force to bend steel.

This person is called a smith. It used to be such a common profession that one of the most common surnames is Smith.

Now take a hot temperature going for longer then used in a forge and apply not the pressure of a human wield hammer but the weight of twenty stories. Once it starts collapsing it would be a cascading failure as the momentum would add even more force. It goes from being a hammer used as a paper weight to one of a hammer being used to strike a blow as twenty plus stories collapse 3m onto the floor below and then they combine and collapse further with more speed and hence more energy.

[Fisherking]

If fire had caused the building collapse there are several things missing.

Each of the structural members had a safety factor of at least 5, meaning they could support 5 times the load placed upon them. Straight down was the path of greatest resistance.

Had it been fire which caused the failure then you would expect to see the building lean in the direction of least resistance until the effected area toppled over leaving the floors beneath substantially unaffected. Had it pancaked as NIST theorised there would have been a number of substantial jolts and left a collapsed structure about 30 stories high.

Instead we have building 1 coming down in 11 sec. and building 2 in only 9 sec. There was very little of the building left above the first two floors and those who escaped after the collapse reported seeing blue sky overhead. Essentially 900,000 tons of reenforced concrete and steel were pulverised to dust before it ever hit the ground. There were pools of molten metal and the rubble pile remained hot for weeks.

The black smoke coming from the buildings is also an indicator of the temperature of the fires inside. Black smoke is oxygen starved and would indicate fires of only about 600° to possibly 800° C, NIST acknowledges the presence of molten iron and steel but offers no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=OmuzyWC60eE

Just who is ignoring the physics and engineering behind it?

[Greyblades]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/965/242/45d.jpg

Its 2015 and we're still going on about this.

[Fragony]

Hmm, interesting. So in other words you are calling me stupid? Why the vitriol? Just because I don't any accept any official story about the 9/11 incident? Whether it's a 9/11 "truther" or the mainstream news media? If I'm supposed to accept the mainstream media which one? The US? France? Al Jazeera? Pravda? BBC?


Since you mention Murrow I'll assume for now you're American? So Brian Williams was unbiased? Yeah, he never lied. And Fox News is fair and balanced too... :rolleyes:

I think you miss my point. You say read both sides and then let adversarial process uncover the truth. Who has time to do that? There are only 24 hours in the day.
I'm saying there are no "both sides". It's all ice cream, you just pick your flavor. And every one of them tastes good, makes you feel good for awhile, but eventually you're going to regret eating it.
Every source is tainted to one degree or another. And the only real agenda you can follow is money, or power...or sex. They are interwoven and you can trade one for another.

As to my "a good lie" comment, that is self evident. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you could explain why Snopes is rife with so many articles marked as status: "mixed" or "multiple"? Many people have fallen for those silly little chain emails. Just imagine how elaborate the lie if you have a media publisher in your pocket.

Not calling you an idiot but Acin is right on how metal works, wielders would get out of business if metal couldn't be bended. As for the other buildings, it is highly likely that they were already equiped with explosives, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Secret services are really effective so they probably knew way in advace that this could happen. Damage control. It's rediculous to believe this was an inside job, not implying you say that

[Risasi]

Not calling you an idiot but...


"This is asinine."

as·i·nine
ˈasəˌnīn
adjective
extremely stupid or foolish.


"People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand"...


"Smarten up and realize that"

Sure he wasn't. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I'm merely pointing out that much of his counterpoint was attack.




...Acin is right on how metal works, wielders would get out of business if metal couldn't be bended. As for the other buildings, it is highly likely that they were already equiped with explosives, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Secret services are really effective so they probably knew way in advace that this could happen. Damage control. It's rediculous to believe this was an inside job, not implying you say that

I find the part I bolded extremely interesting. Is that your explanation for Building 7? I mean...I guess that makes sense, since the alphabet soup agencies were tenants of that building. I'm sure they just happened to have enough explosives laying around to cause the building to pancake in on its footprint too. Or are you saying they kept the entire building wired up for just such an emergency?

Also, secret services are really effective? Meaning they should have known about the attack ahead of time? Or they are just really effective in controlled demolition, but not intelligence? :curtain:

I've also seen some of the girders from the WTC site, in person (well, allegedly they are). It is in a memorial site in the middle of the United States. As far as I know rest of the evidence...er, I mean debris was promptly sold for scrap and shipped to Russia or China, I think.

[Viking]

The black smoke coming from the buildings is also an indicator of the temperature of the fires inside. Black smoke is oxygen starved and would indicate fires of only about 600° to possibly 800° C, NIST acknowledges the presence of molten iron and steel but offers no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=OmuzyWC60eE


That's wrong. Molten materials are treated at points 21 and 23 here (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm).

[Fisherking]

That's wrong. Molten materials are treated at points 21 and 23 here (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm).



They are showing ignorance if anyone thinks that glowing orange yellow metal is aluminium. Melted aluminium is silver and dose not glow unless it is in the presence of an electrode used in the smelting process. It would scum over with a white film in its reaction to the air but would not glow. As for being mixed with other materials that would just result in a blackening of the scum rather than forming a glowing mass. This explanation is grasping at straws.

It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.

The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

[Risasi]

<snip>
The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down? What are the odds? I mean all it would take is one set of bolts in those girders to not fail and the path of least resistance has now shifted to a topple.

All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

[Viking]

They are showing ignorance if anyone thinks that glowing orange yellow metal is aluminium. Melted aluminium is silver and dose not glow unless it is in the presence of an electrode used in the smelting process. It would scum over with a white film in its reaction to the air but would not glow. As for being mixed with other materials that would just result in a blackening of the scum rather than forming a glowing mass. This explanation is grasping at straws.

And how many experiments with melted aluminium in conditions similar to those at the WTC have you performed to come this conclusion with such confidence?


It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.

That doesn't sound very "open minded".

First, you would have to confirm the amounts of melted metal to calculate the energy required for the phase transformation (the smaller the individual melted pieces, the more local the intense heat could be). Then, with these numbers, you would have to look at what could act as fuel in the rubble; including things like local pockets of jet fuel, furniture etc. Potentially, a mix of different materials could be a potent fuel source under the right circumstances. You'd also have run a lot experiments to check whether the ruins would definitely block all ways of getting oxygen from the surroundings.

You'd also have to rule out, as with the above, that the fires/kinetic energy of the airplane in some small areas provided enough heat to melt steel.

(fun fact: at least some steel can burn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bang/handson/steel_wool.shtml))


The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Again, which experiments have you run?


All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

Unless you believe that they were brought down by demolition, it's not strange that they didn't look like demolitions.

[Risasi]

...except the WTC buildings do looking like demos.

https://youtu.be/-zHHvo6U4lA

EDIT: Ugh, great. Thanks a lot you guys. Now I'm watching videos and re-evaluating my thoughts on the subject. It's looking far more incriminating than I knew about. For the first time ever I'm reading about Danny Jowenko and Kurt Sonnenfeld.

[Hooahguy]

You guys have it all wrong, Cobra was behind it all!

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hate this thread so much.

[Risasi]

You guys have it all wrong, Cobra was behind it all!

I heard Cobra Commander actually was a founding member of Hydra. He and Dr. Claw...don't call him "Mr."

[Viking]

...except the WTC buildings do looking like demos.

Make up your mind.

[Risasi]

Make up your mind.

Give me another decade or three, then maybe. Probably not. Besides, why am I required to come up with every answer? Pfft.

Frankly I've never been able to come to any conclusion about the twin towers and gave up many years ago. Building 7 has always been a problem. That looks like a clear demo job, for sure. No jet fuel involved, it's a spook building and a lot of secrets died in it when it went flat. You care to explain building 7?

Like I said originally I believe there is so much disinfo sowed in our media forums we will never really figure it out. At least not in this lifetime. One does not have to figure out the truth to know when they are being lied to.

[Husar]

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down?

Three? I saw two towers that planes flew into, but then again I never bothered to read all the detailed reports and stuff.

As for the falling, if I am not mistaken such towers are built with the strongest steel construction/steel columns in the four outside corners, with maybe some weaker supports closer to the center. However, the center is more like reinforced concrete. While reinforced concrete is quite strong, the steel in it is rather bendable without the concrete. So once you get some 10 or 20 stories tumbling down, the will most likely shatter the concrete of the lower floors first, the steel in the concrete will not put up much of a resistance and it crashes through the center first because the center has less of a resistance than the strong steel columns on the outside. These columns can be bent downward due to the immense force of all the material falling down on the inside. Remember that it pretty much hits each of the lower floors as one big ball of rubble and no single floor can hold this, it collapses, joins the big pile of rubble and together they hit the next lower floor. This pile of rubble picks up more energy with each floor that collapses so as long as the top floor concrete cannot hold out the floors falling onto it, the building is done for. A single joint or whatever becomes irrelevant as the chance of it holding a microsecond longer becomes irrelevant. It's like trying to stop a meteor by firing a needle at it.

I really don't quite see the problem given that the outside of the towers was stronger and the inside parts basically became dead weight once a few levels collapsed onto the rest. It would much rather seem unlikely that the mass would break through the harder "outer shell" to collapse into either direction. Especially given that changing the direction of a larger and larger mass requires more and more energy. The comparison with buildings that are constructed in a completely different way is not helpful in this regard.

[Risasi]

Well, there you go. The official story is two planes knocked down three buildings.

[Hooahguy]

Three? I saw two towers that planes flew into, but then again I never bothered to read all the detailed reports and stuff.

Hes referring to Building 7 of the WTC. It burned all day and then collapsed, leading some to believe that it was rigged to blow since no plane hit it. Which is silly because obviously no building ever has fallen due to a fire before.

[Risasi]

Hes referring to Building 7 of the WTC. It burned all day and then collapsed, leading some to believe that it was rigged to blow since no plane hit it. Which is silly because obviously no building ever has fallen due to a fire before.

Like building 6? Which sat between building 7 and one of the twin towers. Building 6 did suffer severe fire damage and was still standing until they demo'ed it. Of course it's a lot smaller so that one can be explained.

Likewise building 7 was hit with debris, but no fuel deposit into the building. There were a few small fires, but most of the windows were still intact. None of these fires were even close to the extent as the other two buildings. Even if they were, where did the fuel come from?
Because this building also collapsed upon itself.
It still hasn't been explained. In fact it was never addressed in the original report. It also housed many cases being investigaed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Over 10,000 were lost in the fire. Among other numerous financials.

[Hooahguy]

Conspiracy theories aside, you do realize that not all fires are the same nor do they have the same affect on buildings right?

[Husar]

Well, there you go. The official story is two planes knocked down three buildings.

I thought we were talking about the twin towers? How many more buildings were there and how tall were they? Why would someone blow up the generator building or whatever else there was? And have you taken into consideration that the shockwave of the two towers collapsing could also affect the integrity of nearby smaller buildings?

And while I'm at it, if that is all you took away from my post, I'm sorry for you.

[Risasi]

Husar:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Site_Maps

This map should help a little.


Also, here is video of building 7's demise:
https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

And no, it was not the only thing I took from your post. However I have always been doubtful of what to believe about the twin towers. This is why I focus on building 7. It is the most blatant example of something that doesn't add up. I lies roughly 100m from the plaza. It is separated from the other two buildings. Yet it fell down also.

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

[Hooahguy]

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.
Simple google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse#Initiating_factors_behind_notable_examples)

[Husar]

Husar:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Site_Maps

This map should help a little.


Also, here is video of building 7's demise:
https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

And no, it was not the only thing I took from your post. However I have always been doubtful of what to believe about the twin towers. This is why I focus on building 7. It is the most blatant example of something that doesn't add up. I lies roughly 100m from the plaza. It is separated from the other two buildings. Yet it fell down also.

And why would someone blow up a comparatively insignificant building to start a war or whatever the point was? You make it sound like the whole affair was an elaborate insurance scam of the owner...

And this is why the focus should be on the twin towers, because they were the important part. collateral damage happens and whether you can understand it is irrelevant. It's hard to say why building 7 dropped that way without knowing how exactly it was damaged. How many people died in building 7 anyway and would that number "justify" an evil cabal blowing it up to start a war?


By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

How would any of these comparisons help?

[Greyblades]

This thread.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/714/525/355.jpg

[Risasi]

comparatively insignificant building

That's your opinion. Look at the tenants, follow the money. I think you missed earlier where I mentioned just one of many small financial aspects affected by building 7 being taken down.

---

Hooahguy Thanks for proving my point. Did you even read the contents of your own link?

St. Mark's Campanile - Not a skyscraper

Aberdeen Department building - suffered a total collapse while under construction

Ronan Point - suffered a fatal collapse of one of its corners. Still upright after collapse

Skyline Towers Fairfax, VA - "blamed the accident on insufficient wooden shoring to hold up concrete being poured to form the floor above it." Large section still standing after collapse

Wedbush building - partial collapse, under construction

L'Ambiance Plaza collapse - under construction

Sampoong Dept Store - another partial, also was due to the removal of several support columns on the lower floors in order to make room for escalators.

Winsdor Tower - My favorite. "suffered the collapse of the upper 11 floors of the building" They even have a picture of the building post collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid) There are like ten stories still standing.

Okay, there are a few I skipped. Like 700 year old churches and stuff. Most aren't skyscrapers, of course the WTC buildings are also listed on that site. Your link was a red herring. No other skyscrapers have collapsed exactly like the three at the 9/11 incident, not into their own footprint like the WTC buildings. Not without help.

[Hooahguy]

Its almost as if buildings are not all built the same so while the method of collapse are the similar the results might differ. So you are totally missing my point in all of this.

EDIT: let me reiterate- no building is exactly the same. When a progressive collapse occurs it affects buildings in different ways considering how the collapse is triggered. You are not going to find the exact same scenario anywhere since it was a unique event.

[Papewaio]

Whilst oxygen gives its name to the class of oxidizers it is not the only one.

Aluminum when hot enough will burn, something the British Royal Navy found out the hard way in the Falklands war when their Aluminum warships burnt up.

You can soften steel by striking it. To melt something you can hit it with enough kinetic energy it will melt. So even without a oxidizer rich environment you can melt objects with enough kinetic force.

[Husar]

That's your opinion. Look at the tenants, follow the money. I think you missed earlier where I mentioned just one of many small financial aspects affected by building 7 being taken down.

Because it is super unlikely that when someone flies planes into the World Trade Center, that there is a financial component to it or someone somewhere even profits from it? Again, how many people died from the collapse of building 7? And even if we assume that it was demolished later on, how is that evil? Could they not have demolished it to make it collapse like that and not kill even more people or cause even more damage? Were the two following wars started because of the collapse of building 7 or maybe because someone flew two planes into the twin towers? And how were Russia and Israel part of the conspiracy since they apparently knew about the terror plans as well? Is Putin a CIA agent now or would he rather have blown the whole conspiracy up first chance he got? Other than wild theories I see nothing credible that would make me believe it was "an inside job". And focusing on some sideshow of the whole affair because you have to admit that the major event was probably not staged makes it seem even less credible.

[a completely inoffensive name]

9/11 was a Bush conspiracy to create a pretext for a 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq for oil we never got.

[Fragony]

...except the WTC buildings do looking like demos.

https://youtu.be/-zHHvo6U4lA

EDIT: Ugh, great. Thanks a lot you guys. Now I'm watching videos and re-evaluating my thoughts on the subject. It's looking far more incriminating than I knew about. For the first time ever I'm reading about Danny Jowenko and Kurt Sonnenfeld.

With demolition you blow up the lower floors and let the weight do the rest, what you are seing ain't demolition, it crumbles from above. What looks like explosions is air escaping after getting sandwiched

[Risasi]

With demolition you blow up the lower floors and let the weight do the rest, what you are seing ain't demolition, it crumbles from above. What looks like explosions is air escaping after getting sandwiched

Yeah, I was wrong there. I should have said building 7, not made a blanket statement about all WTC buildings. Building 7 has always been my focus in this. But I can see that it's pointless. Everyone had already made up their mind and is not even open to actually discussing facts. Which is fine.

It's pretty obvious though that you didn't watch that link, as it specifically is footage of building 7 coming down. What you just described above of a demolition is what happens in that video. Which is pretty ironic.

[Fragony]

Yeah, I was wrong there. I should have said building 7, not made a blanket statement about all WTC buildings. Building 7 has always been my focus in this. But I can see that it's pointless. Everyone had already made up their mind and is not even open to actually discussing facts. Which is fine.

It's pretty obvious though that you didn't watch that link, as it specifically is footage of building 7 coming down. What you just described above of a demolition is what happens in that video. Which is pretty ironic.

Buildin number 7 was destroyed with explosives, after it was evacueted. The exposives were probably already there in case of a scenario of two planes flying into the Twin Towers. Conspiracies are never big.

[Fisherking]

And how many experiments with melted aluminium in conditions similar to those at the WTC have you performed to come this conclusion with such confidence?


LOL, far more than you have and seemingly more than NIST and FEMA ever did to prove their hypothesis.




You'd also have to rule out, as with the above, that the fires/kinetic energy of the airplane in some small areas provided enough heat to melt steel.


Surely you are joking. To heat all the members equally so that it pancaked down rather than typing or distorting on any other axis? To collapse the entire structure straight down through the path of greatest resistance, not once but twice.

I don’t think those aircraft possessed the kinetic energy to result in melted metal. There are several engineers who call into question if they had sufficient energy to penetrate the building to the extent they did. At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707. It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.

Please understand that there was a great deal of criticism of the investigation, from the beginning, as it was not conducted in a cogent manner. The agencies involved abandoned their own standards going in. It was not a fire safety investigation at all. There was no attempt to gather evidence, analyse the rubble, etc. The site was just ordered to be cleared and the handling of causes were primarily theoretical.


I happen to have a background in engineering and metallurgy and have done more than my fair share of fire protection work. However, like most people I took the government at their word for years. This is not a topic I had reason to question, nor the time, until after my retirement.

It would appear that NIST and FEMA are the ones who are voicing opinions without proper experimentation, which could be why only a couple of dozen engineers and architects have publicly supported their conclusion, while a few thousand are on record in calling for further investigations. Most simply haven’t had time or inclination to read the reports or review the data, which is understandable. This is something that takes people out of their comfort zone.

Still, there is the problem that the NIST explanation defies physics, at least as we know it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

[a completely inoffensive name]

What is your background fisherking?

[Beskar]

What is your background fisherking?

I know he cooked up a formulae for Damascus steel.

[Ironside]

I don’t think those aircraft possessed the kinetic energy to result in melted metal. There are several engineers who call into question if they had sufficient energy to penetrate the building to the extent they did. At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707. It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.


They did withstand the impact. That's why it took a while before the buildings fell down.


9/11 was a Bush conspiracy to create a pretext for a 2 trillion dollar war in Iraq for oil we never got.

Which actually is pretty funny. I mean, we did see how the same government (aka the same people) handled getting a pretext of invading Iraq.

It sucked and it was obvious.

[Viking]

You care to explain building 7?

I don't explain anything; I question those who think they can.


LOL, far more than you have

So, what exactly? Aluminium mixed with which impurities under which conditions? How hot?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn8rb5H_fhI


Surely you are joking. To heat all the members equally so that it pancaked down rather than typing or distorting on any other axis?

This was about the melted steel supposedly found on the ground, not the structural collapse.


To collapse the entire structure straight down through the path of greatest resistance, not once but twice.

It's also the path of the gravity vector. One cannot reason with such things using intuition, you need to run simulations and test with the real thing. Strange and counter-intuitive effects can occur under certain circumstances.


At the time of design the buildings were engineered to withstand the impact of a Boing 707.

And they did withstand the impacts. For a while.


It is also known that a 707 has more energy on impact than the 767s that were used in the attacks.

Well, that's velocity-dependent..

[Papewaio]

Energy = mass x gravity x height

A building falling down as it did is going to generate a lot of force and hence energy. Falling 400m (approx top) into the lower basements/subway will release a lot of potential energy. All that twistied steel and pulverized concrete is going to also absorb a lot of heat.

If the building was 900,000 tons and it fell on average (half its height) then the force was
= 900,000,000 x 9.8 x 200
= 1,764,000,000,000 Joules

That's a lot of energy

[Strike For The South]

Simply asking a question is not a substitute for critical thought.

[Fisherking]

The aluminium experiment was conducted by Dr. Steven Jones, with predictable results. It did not fluoresce yellow-orange but developed a black film on the top.

It is an unwillingness by the government to prove their hypothesis by experimentation that has proven the problem. Those critical of the reports are calling for them to do so and get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=8&v=rxztmVmthWg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adx0ZJL-Weg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUyTDFaFHAo

The government’s official report has been proven to be in error or its assertions unproven by experiment in a number of areas.

People who would call any other such theories into question readily except it because it is the government and the alternative is too uncomfortable to contemplate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxiQmtVGgcQ&spfreload=1

[Viking]

The aluminium experiment was conducted by Dr. Steven Jones, with predictable results. It did not fluoresce yellow-orange but developed a black film on the top.

I would really like to see a video of that experiment. He appears to be wrong. Here's video where a "truther" pours liquid aluminium into a pan. It does not turn silvery until it has been cooled by the pan (an excellent heat conductor):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ

https://i.imgur.com/1Hd5B3j.jpg

This was also in daylight conditions. In the comments, he tries to blame it on the glow from the crucible; but then, how will one explain that it looks silvery in this very similar setting within a second later?

https://i.imgur.com/pQmGwiP.jpg

It seems very likely to me that the aluminium itself was glowing with a bright yellow colour.


It is an unwillingness by the government to prove their hypothesis by experimentation that has proven the problem. Those critical of the reports are calling for them to do so and get to the bottom of exactly what happened.

[...]

The government’s official report has been proven to be in error or its assertions unproven by experiment in a number of areas.

And what was the purpose of the official report? To eliminate the possibility of controlled demolition, or just a standard shallow investigation that would happen even if no buildings collapsed, to provide a detailed sequence of events?


People who would call any other such theories into question readily except it because it is the government and the alternative is too uncomfortable to contemplate.

Occam's razor is the default bias of people. If I studied how electricity is supposed to be transported from the power plant to my home, I could probably find something that appears to break the laws of physics, and argue that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.

[Fisherking]

The glow was from the crucible, not the metal. It is also a generous statement that the fire could have reached 1800°F but hay, while experts point out it is a high number they let them have it. There are still problems with the claims.

The people who developed the theories of the collapse said those theories needed to be proved. They weren’t. Their own models had to be modified and those things they tried to have independently verified failed, yet they still would not revise the reports.

I fear you are woefully misinformed if you think the hard science and physics favours the reports.

Occam's razor just happens to be on the side of the people you term truths.

[Beskar]

Just throwing the possibility out there, what if the construction company cut corners using less than ideal purities and construction methods. Would that adjust the figures enough to make it within 'range' ?

Most of the figures and examples used assume ideal conditions.

Less grand conspiracy and more shoddy corrupt workmanship in their construction.

[Greyblades]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/016/759/d88.png

[Viking]

The glow was from the crucible, not the metal.

I just illustrated with the screenshots why this is an unlikely explanation.

In the first frame, all the aluminium is yellow, and there is little to no variation in colour between the aluminium in the pan and the aluminium that has just exited the crucible.

In the second frame, only the aluminium mid-air or currently exiting the crucible is uniformly yellow - the aluminium in the pan has a distinct silvery appearance. This despite the fact that the crucible has barely changed position between the two frames.

In other words, the cooling of the aluminium is the likely culprit: it is no longer hot enough to glow.

If this is incorrect, just provide a video where aluminium appearing yellow in the crucible appears silvery as it falls.


I fear you are woefully misinformed if you think the hard science and physics favours the reports.

I do not back up any report. That would not seem to be a particularly fruitful endeavour as a matter of principle - any report can contain errors and sloppy work.


Occam's razor just happens to be on the side of the people you term truths.

Occam's razor favours the simplest theory (it's one of many forms of bias); that's how it is defined. Often, the complexity of theories are easy to compare; other times, not so much.

[Fisherking]

We do not know the provence of the video and they were explaining the metal was silver when they poured it.

Trust me, I have seen more molten aluminium than you could imagine and it dose not glow yellow-orange, impurities or not. Aluminium doesn't change colour between it solid state and its liquid state. If you heat a portion of it when it reaches the melting point it just begins to flow.

As to Occam's razor, explain or demonstrate how three high-rise buildings collapsed by simple office fires in their upper stories bringing them down in their own footprints at near free fall speeds.

At best they would collapse only the number of stories equal to their own weight and not the entire structure. They, themselves would be destroyed first releasing the weight and strains on the remaining structure.

Otherwise, it is a violation of Newton’s Third Law.The building below was undamaged and could support more than three to five time the weight placed upon it. Also that destruction would take the path of least resistance, most likely resolution in the upper floors toppling.

For the destruction to occur as it did, there could be no resistance from the lower floors.

Go back and watch the videos I linked and get the explanations. This is not a half baked conspiracy theory. This is engineers and scientists questioning the unreasonable explanations offered up in the governmental agencies unproven theories and assumptions.

Every other day the laws of gravity and physics have applies and remained constant. Only on 9, 11, 2001 did they seemingly take a holiday in order to make the governmental reports valid.

[Fisherking]

Just throwing the possibility out there, what if the construction company cut corners using less than ideal purities and construction methods. Would that adjust the figures enough to make it within 'range' ?

Most of the figures and examples used assume ideal conditions.

Less grand conspiracy and more shoddy corrupt workmanship in their construction.
After the first bombing the world trade towers became the most studied buildings in the world.
From the remaining samples there were no substandard materials used.
They were very high profile buildings from the very beginning and fairly tightly controlled.

Here is a general history of their construction and a few other details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center

On the research and controversies, you may find this of great interest: Mechanisms of Destruction and Collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) Buildings on 9/11

An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 - 2012
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mechanisms-of-destruction-and-collapse-of-the-world-trade-center-wtc-buildings-on-911/5333553

[Viking]

We do not know the provence of the video and they were explaining the metal was silver when they poured it.

Before he pours it, he says it is aluminium. At the start of the video, I think he says it is 2000 series alloy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy#Wrought_alloys) (i.e. aluminium with copper). I guess the mention of silver is a reference to the appearance of the aluminium once in the pan.


Trust me

After berating people for placing their trust in official theories, this seems pretty ironic.


I have seen more molten aluminium than you could imagine and it dose not glow yellow-orange, impurities or not. Aluminium doesn't change colour between it solid state and its liquid state. If you heat a portion of it when it reaches the melting point it just begins to flow.

There is no way for people to confirm that your observations are incompatible with glowing aluminium. Temperature could be wrong, setting might favour cooling of the surface of the liquid aluminium etc.

I can even find an entire page (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/glowing.html) dedicated to a demonstration of glowing aluminium.

And why shouldn't it glow, given the general principle of black body radiation?


As to Occam's razor, explain or demonstrate how three high-rise buildings collapsed by simple office fires in their upper stories bringing them down in their own footprints at near free fall speeds.

This is missing the point. When a plane crashes into a building and the building later collapses, the simplest theory is that the collapse of the building is related to the crash. If this theory turns out to be incompatible with observed data, then Occam selects the next hypothesis that is the simplest one and consistent with the data (but only then).


At best they would collapse only the number of stories equal to their own weight and not the entire structure. They, themselves would be destroyed first releasing the weight and strains on the remaining structure.

Otherwise, it is a violation of Newton’s Third Law.The building below was undamaged and could support more than three to five time the weight placed upon it. Also that destruction would take the path of least resistance, most likely resolution in the upper floors toppling.

For the destruction to occur as it did, there could be no resistance from the lower floors.

It doesn't seem like you are accounting for the motion of the collapsing floors. For example, this explanation (http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc7.htm)makes just as much sense as the one you provide:


When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time.

It's not obvious that a skyscraper would be built in such a way that any floor should be able to withstand 10 more floors crashing down on it.


This is engineers and scientists questioning the unreasonable explanations offered up in the governmental agencies unproven theories and assumptions.

Just because they are scientists and engineers does not mean that they have a point. They cannot be assumed to be qualified to answer any question relevant to their field - specialisation exists for a reason.

I am pretty sure I could find opposing arguments to any objection thrown at the notion of a "normal" collapse of the buildings. The only way to find out what is correct is to perform multiple simulations and well-designed experiments (not just any experiment that looks superficially similar).

[CrossLOPER]

Is this seriously a thread about whether jet fuel can melt steel beams?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know he cooked up a formulae for Damascus steel.

If that were the case then he's be world-famous because nobody even knows what "Damascus" steel is -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel

[Hooahguy]

Is this seriously a thread about whether jet fuel can melt steel beams?
This whole thread needs a giant tinfoil hat.

[Beskar]

If that were the case then he's be world-famous because nobody even knows what "Damascus" steel is -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel

It is an injoke reference to a Game of Thrones game where he came up with a plan to mass produce damascus steel with specifically important iron ore, pig bladders and masonic rituals.

Unfortunately, I don't have a saved copy of this anymore.

[Greyblades]

I remember that game, best game I had ever played, I even still have some of the quick topics saved. Who was fisherking playing again?

[Montmorency]

I had plans too - good ones!

I think Dorne is still working on them...

[Ironside]

We do not know the provence of the video and they were explaining the metal was silver when they poured it.

Trust me, I have seen more molten aluminium than you could imagine and it dose not glow yellow-orange, impurities or not. Aluminium doesn't change colour between it solid state and its liquid state. If you heat a portion of it when it reaches the melting point it just begins to flow.

As to Occam's razor, explain or demonstrate how three high-rise buildings collapsed by simple office fires in their upper stories bringing them down in their own footprints at near free fall speeds.

At best they would collapse only the number of stories equal to their own weight and not the entire structure. They, themselves would be destroyed first releasing the weight and strains on the remaining structure.

Otherwise, it is a violation of Newton’s Third Law.The building below was undamaged and could support more than three to five time the weight placed upon it. Also that destruction would take the path of least resistance, most likely resolution in the upper floors toppling.

For the destruction to occur as it did, there could be no resistance from the lower floors.


So, the simpler theory is that they noiselessly blew up most of the support in both buildings without getting noticed? I suppose you could have some guys working on destroying the supports for a few month in before, but that would still require enough support to have the building standing.

And the something that glowed yellow (and certainly couldn't be a very hot metal, like alumina) was something critical to this step?

I haven't studied the support of the WTC buildings, but in general, skyscrapers has fairly rigid outer wall support. If the central support is collapsing first, then the path of least resistance is collapsing towards the center. Thus no toppling.

[Fisherking]

It is an injoke reference to a Game of Thrones game where he came up with a plan to mass produce damascus steel with specifically important iron ore, pig bladders and masonic rituals.

Unfortunately, I don't have a saved copy of this anymore.


I remember that game, best game I had ever played, I even still have some of the quick topics saved. Who was fisherking playing again?

lol, Paxter Redwyne
I may have come up with a method for making crucible steel, and maybe even spring steel but I just don’t remember any incantations. All that was based on sound engineering principles and historical models. Whether I actually had the manpower to accomplish it was my main concern.


So, the simpler theory is that they noiselessly blew up most of the support in both buildings without getting noticed? I suppose you could have some guys working on destroying the supports for a few month in before, but that would still require enough support to have the building standing.

And the something that glowed yellow (and certainly couldn't be a very hot metal, like alumina) was something critical to this step?

I haven't studied the support of the WTC buildings, but in general, skyscrapers has fairly rigid outer wall support. If the central support is collapsing first, then the path of least resistance is collapsing towards the center. Thus no toppling.

Apparently you all seem to believe the government report without knowing what is in it.

They only offered theories on the collapse of the upper sections of buildings 1 & 2. They didn’t explain the mechanism for the complete building collapses. Building 7 was not analysed.

The only reason controlled demolition is the opposing theory is because it is the only thing that explains the physics of the collapse and there is evidence in the debris to support it. Occam's razor.

Even the collapses of the upper stories was only theoretical and untested. The only testing done was of the floor joists and their presumed distortion and that testing by Underwriters Laboratories disproved their hypothesis.

In other words you accept the reports based on unproven theory and conjecture and disallow those based in science.

While it may be unthinkable that someone could be monstrous enough to destroy occupied buildings for some unknown goal the alternative is that physics and building sciences did not function on that one day. It also means that every high rise building is at risk of a similar collapse and there is no assurances that it will not happen again.

One more time, look this over and see if you don’t see any grounds for disagreement.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mechanisms-of-destruction-and-collapse-of-the-world-trade-center-wtc-buildings-on-911/5333553

[Papewaio]

The collapses begins at the levels where the buildings are burning.

They collapse and the levels above come straight down funneled by the steel outer wall.

The demolition theory is not the simplest theory. It is quite complex.

It doesn't explain why it collapses from the levels are burning at. It doesn't explain how the detonation cords, devices and explosives all remain intact post impact and fire to allow a controlled demolition.

Instead there is complaints about what is the yellow glowing dripping fluid which could molten metal or burning liquids. Think of all copper network cabling, pipes, plastics, burning office equipment, glass etc that could create a burning yellow liquid.

[Fisherking]

The collapses begins at the levels where the buildings are burning.

They collapse and the levels above come straight down funneled by the steel outer wall.

The demolition theory is not the simplest theory. It is quite complex.

It doesn't explain why it collapses from the levels are burning at. It doesn't explain how the detonation cords, devices and explosives all remain intact post impact and fire to allow a controlled demolition.

Instead there is complaints about what is the yellow glowing dripping fluid which could molten metal or burning liquids. Think of all copper network cabling, pipes, plastics, burning office equipment, glass etc that could create a burning yellow liquid.




No one is delving into conjecture as to how it was done. The physics of the collapse lead to the theory of controlled demolition.

Either Newton’s third law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, works or it doesn’t.

What seems to have happened at the WTC is that the buildings collapsed before the upper floors could collide with them and the building went down in free fall.

The government reports do not address this.

There just is no other known method that can account for the lack of resistance from the rest of the building.

[Montmorency]

Fisherking, if there were a controlled demolition then where were the charges placed, such that they could lead to the collapse as it occurred?

[Viking]

If we can also rule out controlled demolition, we will, in fact, have proven that the towers are still standing.

[CrossLOPER]

OK, so the argument now is that there was a guy sitting around waiting for the top part of the towers to collapse, so that the charges could be set of at the exact time the tons of concrete and steel fell on the weak point of a damaged structure?

Brilliant.

[Fisherking]

Fisherking, if there were a controlled demolition then where were the charges placed, such that they could lead to the collapse as it occurred?

I don’t insist that controlled demolition is the only way they could have collapsed. I just see it as the most likely cause in light of what we have to go on.

The government’s report stopped with the collapse of the upper floors onto the lower floors. That report was flawed and the assumptions based on it were proved inaccurate.
NIST has refused all FOIA requests for more information, preventing more detailed analysis.

If there is some other cause it needs to be discovered, which requires more study.

I have repeatedly linked to an overview of the peer reviewed papers written on the topic.

That shows that there is a shift of consensus in the engineering community that find controlled demolition as the more likely explanation of the buildings coming down.

It is not a problem that can be swept under the rug and forgotten, as every new building that goes up needs to address those very possibilities.

This is all just an updated version of the magic bullet theory. Everyone can see it is a lie but they won’t challenge anyone on it for fear of ridicule.

Face it, most of you only know what the media reported. The upper floors fell onto the lower floors causing a complete collapse of the buildings. You don’t know enough of building design or physics to say otherwise and you surely don’t want to be ridiculed, so you accept an implausible explanation at face value and carry the water for those who lied to you. You won’t question authority because it is uncomfortable. Congratulations. Your faith in government out weighs any inconvenient facts.

I’m done.

[CrossLOPER]

I have repeatedly linked to an overview of the peer reviewed papers written on the topic.
Going through the thread, I found a bunch of youtube videos that featured crude drawings and conspiracy sites; I don't think you know what "peer-reviewed" means.