Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

  1. #1901
    Quote Originally Posted by lixluke View Post
    Because it was not caused by fire. Fire has never and will never cause buildings to collapse in that manner.
    The entire scientific community, nevermind the civil engineering community or demolition community say otherwise.

    Does this not in the least bit cause some doubt in your mind? The conspiracy is so perfect and so vast that it includes a supreme majority of independent experts?

    Also, we should distinguish between 'building' and 'skyscraper'. I can show you a video from YouTube of a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire in almost free fall fashion.

  2. #1902
    Quote Originally Posted by voyager View Post
    i'm not going to repeat myself for anybody.
    i've presented my evidence and scott has failed to address it, much less disprove it.

    i've asked scott to name the similarities between the collapse of the WTC towers and a controlled demolition and he has failed to do so. this implies to me that he can't find any.
    I believe I have now. voyager, you may want to look at the -quantity- of messages I've been responding to and how in depth they frequently are; many times, I don't just pop links out of my favourites bar; I've got to look for a lot of them. In essence, I can only go so fast.

  3. #1903
    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffP View Post
    Does concrete melt?
    At a high enough temperature, yes it does (no idea what that temperature might be, but I think the temperatures that were observed just might have done it). However, no one (as far as I know) is claiming that they saw any evidence that this occurred.

    At what temperature does it lose 50% of its supportive strength?
    Your guess is as good as mine :-).

  4. #1904
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Structural engineers are a somewhat rare breed
    Structural engineers who support the troothers certainly are.
    As I've mentioned before, they are somewhat dependent on the government looking on them benevolently and giving them permissions to do buildings and such. Nevertheless, while they may not generally be vocal supporters of the alternate 9/11 theories out there, I certainly haven't seen a big list (or any list) of structural engineer supporters either. You have one handy or is it simply your belief that most structural engineers support the official 9/11 story?

    1? Your kidding they must have more than 1.
    Could be. I haven't bothered to look through the 500+ list, but if you'd like to, be my guest:

    (you don't actually have to sign the petition to see the list).

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    But I think you yourself are the one who's getting a bit dazzled here. You don't need to be a structural engineer in order to realize that the official WTC collapse theory is full of holes.
    Just gullible.
    Very funny :-p. I'd argue that it's actually the official story believers who are being misled, ofcourse...

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    I believe that a firm grasp of physics will do just fine.
    Something you do not appear to have. The comment regarding concrete and steel was a reminder of that.
    Which comment was that?

    My point is this is a guy who has been frequently peer reviewed, and has even been peer reviewed on such a sensitive subject such as the events that took place on 9/11.
    No you still don’t get it. If the official story is full of holes and there are all these appropriately qualified people who agree then where are all the peer reviewed documents in relevant journals?
    The freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses. I was taking a look at the term 'peer' in wikipedia; the first entry was:
    "A member of the peerage, a system of honours or nobility in various countries"

    Now, I know that in America, 'nobility' doesn't quite exist anymore per se, but let's be honest; if anyone fits the bill for american nobility, politicians and the mainstream media barons would certainly qualify. And yet, it is these very groups who are accused of malfeasance in 9/11. Surely you see the potential for a conflict of interest in spreading the truth for them if they were guilty?

    Pointing to his articles on cold fusion just shows you don’t comprehend what is going on.
    I'm trying to make it clear that this is a guy who -has- been published the creme de la creme of mainstream scientific publications; that is, when the issue wasn't as controversial and politically dangerous as his views on 9/11. But as I told Kenny a while back, it took scientists about 50 years to realize that man made global warming was the real deal. So perhaps it'll be a while yet before many if not most scientists realize the real perpetrators behind 9/11. I'm curious: do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman? Many now have doubts on that one, but some still believe that old yarn; there was a big comission on that one too, ofcourse. Back in the 'good ole' days', I believe that not so many people read though (no internet for one).

    Here's a good quote for how things were done back then:
    During the Kennedy Administration, Dulles faced increasing criticism. The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and several failed assassination plots utilizing CIA-recruited operatives from the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans directly against Fidel Castro undermined the CIA's credibility, and pro-American but unpopular regimes in Iran and Guatemala that he helped put in place were widely regarded as brutal and corrupt. The reputation of the agency and its director declined after the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco; he and his staff (including Director for Plans Richard Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell) were forced to resign (September 1961). President Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and he reportedly intended to dismantle it after the Bay of Pigs failure. Kennedy said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds."[3] Ironically, Dulles was later appointed to the Warren Commission, the official government investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

    And another good read, from Michael Rupper's "From the Wilderness" page:
    There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco - and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report - is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."

    Thank goodness we live in more enlightened times these days, where many prefer to spend more time reading, offline and on, then catching soundbites from television. Don't get me wrong, I like television, but I certainly don't trust it as a news source.

  5. #1905
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    If he said that it was peer reviewed, I'll take his word for it over yours. This is a guy who has been peer reviewed in such noteworthy scientific magazines as Scientific American and Nature. Have -you- ever been published in a peer reviewed publication like that?
    That is a pathetic attempt to keep up with the argument.
    Actually, it's a question, which I see you've decided not to answer.

    I am not releasing documents on the internet (outside the recognised process) like Jones is.
    Ok, you stick to your ps and qs. Personally, I don't think justice for the deaths of the 3000 people killed on 9/11 and the indirect deaths of thousands more as a consequence of that da should have to wait for the truth to go through the 'recognized process'.

    If you are mesmerised by peer reviewed papers then you must have been impressed by the many peer reviewed papers written by structural engineers which support the theory. No? Didn’t read them? No of course you didn’t. You are interested in the conspiracy theory not the truth.
    Post excerpts that you feel are important to your points if you wish, as I do. There's only so much time I have in a day and I'm not going to read what I assume will be fallacy rich material just for the heck of it.

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    I did a little research regarding Gene Corley. Here's a few things I found [rest of my comments concerning Gene Corley and a few others can be found here:]
    You posted that a few days ago. Do you even realise you are just spamming the same nonsense over and over?
    I'd argue it's more the other way around. I wouldn't post it again if I felt you'd understood the message the first time.

    It just makes it clear that there isn’t any point responding and pointing out the problems because you will just post it again next week.
    If you feel you aren't making progress here, you are free to leave this discussion.

    Clearly, some did (or nothing would have fallen out of the building). The surrounding metal may have been softened, but that's something else...
    If there are temperatures high enough to melt steel then surely we would see some near the face of the building being visibly affected...
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    What makes you believe this?
    If there were temperatures around the melting point of steel, and if there were liquid steel flowing out the side of the building we would see the steel in that area visibly affected. We don’t.
    I admit I can neither prove nor disprove what you're saying. I'm not a physicist or an engineer of any type, after all. However, is what you're saying supported by any of the official story voices, is this something you got from some guy somewhere or is this wholly of your creation?

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    As far as I'm concerned, the evidence that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolitions is overwhelming. Thus, it is my 'working model', if you will. I will certainly try to see if evidence can work with this model. Scientists do this all the time. And just like scientists, if I'm not sure it does or if I find that it outright doesn't, I will certainly take this into account.

    I can certainly believe that some of the theories may need a little work. People like Steven Jones have emphatically stated that they would like more research to be done on all of these things. Heck, even Ryan Mackey claims that more research could shed more light on certain issues.

    I think you may have seen from Headspin's youtube video on the subject of molten aluminum at 1000 Fahrenheit that molten aluminum when poured at that temperature is definitely silver.
    Even in that video it is glowing orange while being poured. Watch it for yourself. It goes silver once it hits the pan.
    I would argue that that's not the case; that when it looks orange, it's actually simply the reflection of the container from which it's being poured from. In the WTC building, we never see any 'container' of the molten metal, it simply goes down as yellow/white and -stays- so all the way down.

    However there were most likely other materials in the aluminium as well.
    NIST's explanation of office materials has been handily debunked. I remember a recent one with the idea that it could have been other metals; I haven't seen that particular possibility disproven yet, but perhaps soon.

  6. #1906
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Alright. As you know, the alternate story generally posits that explosives were used. Most if not all ASBs (Alternate Story Believers, I made the term up just now) believe that the temperatures were indeed much higher, but that the fires initiated by the planes and barely sustained afterwards had nothing to do with it. I'm curious: what is the official explanation for them not taking more samples from the impact floors?
    No idea. It's a non issue though as we have discussed several times the steel which was compared to soft licorice and there is evidence of the floor bowing towards the end. Clearly there were high temperatures and the steel was affected.
    Yes, clearly there were high temperatures. The disagreement is in what caused those high temperatures. I have never heard of a fire starving for oxygen turning huge steel beams into twisted licorice sticks. And remember that a lot of those huge steel beams were nowhere near the impact zone. You may wish to consider the possibility that the official investigators took so few samples of the impact floor is not a 'non issue', as you put it.
    So why do you keep spamming cherry picked comments on the temperatures recorded?
    Can you give me an example of one of these 'cherry picked comments'?
    You were posting comments regarding the temperature of the samples reached to try and imply that NIST can’t make their mind up regarding the temperature when it is made clear where the samples were from. It is blatantly obvious that the steel reached very high temperatures. I don’t know what you think you can achieve with these attempts to misrepresent the NIST report.
    Can you cite where I supposedly did this?

    You are trying to imply that either that NIST report is contradictory or that the temperatures never went over 600, or something I’m not sure what your point is here anymore.
    Actually, I'm not implying anything in that article; I'm quoting someone (Jim Hoffman) who is outright declaring that the NIST report is contradictory in certain regards. If anyone is cherry picking, it'd be the author of the quote in question, but I would argue that far from doing so, he's legitimately pointing out a contradiction in the NIST report. The article in question does need a little mental sleuthing. I'll break it down. First, let's start with the opening statement made by Jim Hoffman:
    The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.

    This could be said to be his thesis.

    Next, he goes about making his case. First, he quotes a section of NIST's report:
    "Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. " (p 90/140)

    He quotes that section to make it clear that what he states next is coming from NIST's own report:
    The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF).

    Then, he comes in for the uppercut:
    How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF)., he tells us, and then proceeds to show us that NIST does just that:
    "A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward." (p 98/148)

    He further hammers it in, saying:
    Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.

    Someone here has argued that clearly, there were pieces of the WTC building that got hotter then 250C. And that's certainly true. The problem is how very -unlikely- those temperatures could have been reached due to fire. I have a very strong feeling that some if not all within NIST were well aware of this and were trying to tiptoe around this fact. Perhaps I'm mistaken and the issue here is that they were speaking only of a certain part of the WTC towers and these were the only samples they knew to be from that section. In any case, the samples they took for this part of their report only show indications of being heated to 250C. Good if you want to suppress evidence that anything but office fires took place, but absolutely awful if you want to prove that the fires took the building down.

    What to do? Simply heat up the test steel to temperatures that mean business. Perhaps they felt that the report was huge and no one important would notice. Just how much fire was poured on to get the desired effects? Jim Hoffman gets the relevant quote from NIST:
    "A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC." (p 123/173)

    Jim Hoffman now closes in for the kill:
    1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!

    He then sets NIST up, quoting the following section:
    "The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. "(p 125-6/175-6)

    He now delivers the coup de gras:
    Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.

    The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.

    The article goes on regarding other NIST report flaws, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:

  7. #1907
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    I'm certainly not a supporter of the conservative party in the following election, but I saw this a few moments ago:
    "Sarah Palin Supports New 9/11 Investigation "

    It got me thinking: who else here at the very least supports a new investigation, one that isn't mired by Bush administration appointees and the like?
    “I do because I think that helps us get to the point of never again, and if anything that we could do could still complete that reminder out there,” the Alaska Governor added.

    Quite clearly, she is talking about the national security failures that allowed the attacks to take place.
    Even if they investigated the supposed 'national security failures', it might shed a bit of light on the whether some of the 'failures' may have actually been planned failures. And if they could just get into the failures of FEMA et all in their failure to give credible explanations for the WTC collapses, for instance, I think we would be making some good progress indeed.

    If she stated any different, i.e. thinking that the US government was involved in staging the attacks, then these comments would make the front page and they lose any chance they had of winning the election.
    That just might be true. Nevertheless, I think that -any- investigation into 9/11 that isn't stacked with Bush appointees would be a step in the right direction.

    I can't believe I just defended that bitch... look what you made me do you fucking truther!!

    Yeah, very funny :-p. I'm not one to use foul language as a general rule. I can respect Sarah Palin as a person. I just don't think she should be anywhere near the office of the president :-p. There seems to be a fair amount of republicans that feel the same way. Honestly, though, I can't say that I think McCain is any better. Who knows, maybe he'd be worse. Personally I'm just praying Obama becomes president; I may be a Canadian, but let's face it, the U.S. and Canadian economies aren't exactly strangers. It's said that when the U.S. sneezes, Mexico catches a cold. I'd like to think that Canada is a -little- more independent, but I don't really want to test this theory anytime soon.

    By the way... so far as I'm aware, the 9/11 commission was set up not because of conspiracy theory concerns, but to investigate the failures of national security and so on...
    Sounds about right. And Philip D. Zelikow, who has served in both Bush administrations, was appointed executive director of that commission.

    I found out a few things about Zelikow. First, that he's Jewish. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love some Jews (Natalie Portman, for instance). But I've read enough to wonder if perhaps Israel had something to do with 9/11. Secondly, he is one of the co-author of the article "Catastrophic Terrorism", which was published in foreign affairs in 1998.

    I once postulated that 9/11 may have been done by elements within the government in order to get 'tough on terrorism'. But I now think that perhaps it's terrorism that the government wanted. Zelikow predicted the following would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing had succeeded (there is evidence that it, too, was an inside job):
    "...he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."

    Anyway, here's some links concerning Zelikow and some others.

    Last edited by scott3x; 11-01-08 at 06:23 PM.

  8. #1908
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    Scott, you don't need to be an expert in the matter; all you have to have done is been alive for a while. Haven't you ever seen a fire that has given off thick black smoke when it clearly isn't oxygen starved?

    If not, then here is an experiment:

    Take an assortment of plastics and rubber (like a car tyre) and set fire to them. Make sure they are out in the open so that they can't be said to be oxygen starved. Now observe the thick black smoke as the fire burns.
    I don't have anywhere to burn things, but I'll take your word for it. This is one point that perhaps some alternate theory heavy can answer (Headspin, you there ;-)?).

  9. #1909
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Why did they wait so long to blow the charges? It would make much more sense to blow them WHEN the planes struck the building, it would cover it up the best. Why wait almost an hour?
    There is evidence that some explosives -were- blown up when the planes struck the building, in the basement. Others, somewhat after, and then the grand volley at the end.

  10. #1910
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Scott, you do realize ole Geoff was semi-paying you a complement here..that I will second.
    Yeah, I did kind of notice that :-p. Thanks, both to you and Geoff. Geoff and you have made my stay here easier; Geoff makes me laugh and you can be trusted to come up with a comment or 2 like this ;-). I also tend to think of Geoff as my primary foil, with shaman coming in second and Kenny as third. Geoff seems to be the calmest of them though, so when he got upset a while back, I packed it in for a bit until that got resolved.

    I think everyone has done a pretty good job of keeping it "above the belt"
    Yeah, things are pretty good right now; I notice that a guy who just got into the discussion blew his top, but I guess that's to be expected for the unitiated. I think part of the issue is that many don't have the patience to be sleuthing out the issues for months on end and when they see something they strongly disagree with (9/11 is a fairly emotional issue to many) they simply loose it...

  11. #1911
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Putting aside for a moment that a bridge is not the same thing as a WTC floor, what I'm talking about is that the road below it stopped it from falling further, just as the floors below the plane crash would have stopped any floor above it falling into it.
    You want to rethink that comment?
    Alright, at the very least, it should have made a significant dent in the road then :-p.

    That is among the weakest and most dismal of all the conspiracy arguments. How many high rise buildings have been hit by 767s?
    No 767s, but I believe that planes have hit a high rise or 2 in the past. Aside from the fact that WTC 7 wasn't hit by any high rise, there is also evidence that the planes made negligible damage to the buildings and certainly not enough to bring them down.

    How many high rise fires have been completely out of reach of the firefighters?
    The WTC fires were not 'completely out of reach'. The main problem were the secondary explosions and that not too much time elapsed before the buildings came down.

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    He doesn't specify. In any case, these squibs, in my view, are conlusive evidence that the WTC buildings were, in fact, controlled demolitions.
    The 'squibs' are a probably result of the air being pushed downwards.
    That canard has already been dealt with by Steven Jones:
    4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

    However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.


    The last firefighters out described a gale force wind coming down the stairs when the pancaking started.
    Firefighters also described many explosions; explosives are capable of creating quite strong 'winds'.

  12. #1912


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Oh come on. There were explosives on every floor and no once noticed. … not likely.
    Not sure it had to be on every floor. Jerry Russel who has a master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University, and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon, had this to say:
    The most effective, cleanest, safest way to destroy a skyscraper is known as controlled demolition. The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of the building is supported against the force of gravity.

    The following link also intrigued me. At first, I thought, it couldn't be... but I'm not discounting it as a possibility at this time anyway-

    The idea of explosives built into the building certainly gets a lot of hits on google at any rate:

    Well maybe those last 2 links aren't exactly right . I don't know. It's not part of the mainstream alternative theories as far as I know, but you never know

  13. #1913
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Originally Posted by shaman_
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Originally Posted by shaman_
    which aren’t even that effective for demolition...
    Nano thermite is -very- effective when it comes to cutting into iron based metals (such as steel). Where are you getting your information from?
    Is there any other source for this other than a 9/11 debunking forum?
    Why would that matter? You can't just discard it because it came from a debunker and you don’t want the conspiracy theory tarnished. Then again you refuse to watch SLC...
    Look, if the matter is important, I won't accept what a JREFer says based solely on his or her own word. If you want to make a claim, attempt to prove it with logic or at the very least show an authoritive source. Anyone can make claims (holographic planes, la-zers, deaths rays, you name it). The trick is to have some evidence or atleast logic to back it up. Anyway, I've now watched 12 minutes for SLC. I think that may well do for another few months at any rate. As I have mentioned in the past, if there's a particular point you'd like to get across that's in SLC, you may tell me to watch a particular minute for something. Other then that, I sincerely doubt I'm going to see the 'not freakin' again' version or any other any time soon.

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    In any case, Kevin Ryan says this:
    it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who had access to nano-thermite materials at the time. Like SDI, several other organizations with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science) have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.
    Yes yes future technology and different type of explosives, yet no credible evidence whatsoever.
    Surely you're aware that the military frequently test drives 'future technologies'. You know, there was actually something blown up in New York before the WTC, despite explosives not being allowed as a rule. Paul Isaac, who was dubbed a 9/11 hero, did an investigation on it:

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    ************************************ , page 5

    Perhaps effective, but I'm not so sure it would have been cost effective. You must consider the fact that most companies don't have the types of budgets that the U.S. military has, especially when you consider their 'waste' which could easily be a very large black budget. Donald Rumsfeld said this had to be addressed the day before 9/11, as can be seen here:
    "Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION"
    So they had all this money and the best they could do was some explosives that could be noticed by morons with internet connections and theologians. .. right.
    So now I'm a 'moron'? Look, 7 years have passed since 9/11. Bush is about to walk out of office and there has still been no serious investigation into many things regarding 9/11. If you ask me, they've done a pretty good job of keeping the lid on things. Maybe enough people won't -really- start to question until they're long gone.

    That’s the contradictory nature of your super conspiracy. You believe that they could pull off the most intricate and expensive conspiracy of all time yet you accuse them of making it obvious.
    How is it obvious? You clearly still aren't convinced.

    That page is littered with blatantly stupid, debunked theories. You need to learn to think critically.
    I admit that the nuke theory isn't one of the mainstream alternate theories. But I still consider it a possibility.

  14. #1914
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Originally Posted by shaman_
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Yes, steel can be weakened by fire. But, as Kevin Ryan made clear when NIST was conducting its $16 million, two-year investigation of the collapse of the twin towers:
    Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

    "This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "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.

    He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
    Kevin is wrong regarding the temperatures. The twisted steel, the bowing and the other examples conclusively prove that.
    Ok, can you explain to me (or link to it if you feel you already have) how the twisted steel, alleged bowing and other examples conclusively prove he was wrong?

    As to the twisted steel:
    The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.
    He is claiming that the fires did not go over 500C. The bowing and particularly the twisted steel prove him wrong.
    Right you are. The thing was this: that's the temperature the steel -should- have been at, if it had only been exposed to jet fuel initiated fires. If, on the other hand, it had been exposed to higher temperatures through by other means (such as explosives, say), it could certainly reach temperatures necessary to twist, melt and even evaporate steel.

    The other fires which caused steel to weaken and collapse are precedents which prove it can happen.
    Causing a bit of steel to weaken is nowhere near the same thing as causing the steel within the WTC buildings to weaken sufficiently to collapse.

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    As to the twisted steel:
    The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.
    I clicked on that link and I saw “Footage of Possible *Missile Exiting the World Trade Center Building September 11, 2001 A.D.”
    I took a look and have now seen it too. Who knows, perhaps a missile was attached to the plane, as some think. As you can tell, however, I'm not sure on this one.

  15. #1915
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    The jet fuel will burn at 1800 deg F if it is a 100% efficient burn. This can occur in an engine designed to mix the air and fuel properly or in a 100% oxygen environment. The atmosphere is only 20% oxygen.
    We are not talking just jet fuel. It is common for normal office fires to reach 1800F with or without jet fuel.

    If you put 10 tons of steel into a furnace set at 1800 degrees how long will it take the CORE TEMPERATURE to rise to 1800 deg F?
    Well I showed Scott (some 40 pages ago), tests (independent of NIST and the US government, before 9/11) which show that steel reached 1,000 degrees (I forget if it was C or F) in 40 minutes. This was in a structure, not a furnace, and the result of a normal office fire.

    If you put 100 tons of steel into a furnace set at 1800 degrees how long will it take the CORE TEMPERATURE to rise to 1800 deg F?
    Sounds like a strawman to me. The steel in the WTC was spaced out, and not clumped together.

    Won't it take 100 tons longer than 10 tons? So why don't we know the TONS OF STEEL on every level of the WTC after SEVEN YEARS?
    Strawman confirmed. Assuming steel is thin enough and spaced out enough and in direct contact with high temperatures, it will lose its strength and easily reach the atmospheric temperature of the fires around it.

    How could enough steel weaken in less than 1 hr and 45 minutes?
    Well as independent tests on steel show, fire can easily weaken steel within that time frame. If you are skeptical, just let me know and I'll show you the url to these tests if you can not find it in this thread. I would, but don't have time right now.

  16. #1916
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    The collapse of the building was most certainly a great concern to many, hence the list of peer reviewed articles by the structural engineers.
    And if you don't agree with the official story, hey, you can always get fired like Kevin Ryan. Anyway, can I see this list please?
    Clearly those who are most qualified to speak in the subject agree with the official story.
    In the case of leadership of NIST in the WTC investigation, I would certainly agree that they're qualified; the real issue is whether they're being honest. I have certainly found out certain things that have made me believe otherwise.

    Perhaps they are all in on it.
    I have stated many times that I believe it would only require the top brass to be in on it for it to work.

    Even NIST has let go of the theories for the collapse of the first 2 "peer reviewed" articles there, as Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" the makes clear:

    In the case of the first one, there's even a site complete with a bunch of refutations of its claims:

    The next 3 don't have links.. I think I'll leave it at that for now.

  17. #1917
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by scott3x
    You're right; there was a fair amount of steel too (steel's a little harder to pulverize) but most of that was quickly taken away as has been made clear above. And a lot of paper as well; I guess its ability to move away quickly from the explosive blasts saved it.

    As I make clear in the following article, 'access' is not the same thing as 'having time to properly analyze':
    Plenty of steel samples were ‘properly analyzed’.
    Really? Any of them checked for thermite? Ah yes, that's right, NIST didn't think that was necessary.

    Astaneh-Asl, one of the lead WTC investigators, certairnly wasn't happy with the amount of time he was given to analyze the steel. He was also unhappy about other things concerning the investigation, as I detail in the post I mentioned:

    It was enough to determine what happened.
    According to who? Gene Corley? I've already made it clear that -his- credibility is certainly questionable.

    The evidence was clear and left no room for doubt. Unfortunately later on the tinfoil hat brigade put together their pathetic claims.
    Yeah, well those 'pathetic' claims have been badgering the Bush administration ever since 9/11. Here's to hoping he'll leave quietly and that the next administration will be more receptive to a truly independent investigation with teeth and proper financing.

    Originally Posted by scott3x
    Firemen were hit with a gag order...
    You don’t have reliable evidence for that claim.
    Despite what debunker sites would like you to believe, there is reliable evidence for such a thing. And yes, I have yet to find a mainstream publication that says so. But this, in my view, only adds to the fact that the freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them. The whistle blower regarding the gag order is auxilliary fireman Paul Isaac. Here's 2 very good articles on the gag order:
    From reporter Randy Lavello, who was apparently the first reporter to hear about it:

    Paul Isaac repeated his claim on September 11, 2005:

  18. #1918
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    If they are not a bunch of corrupt bastards, why didn't they even check to see if explosives were used? What moron of a scientist would predetermine explosives were not used before even initiating investingations.

  19. #1919
    Valued Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    We are not talking just jet fuel. It is common for normal office fires to reach 1800F with or without jet fuel.
    So you think there was office material that would burn as hot as jet fuel? Like what?

    There would still be the 20% oxygen problem.

    Sounds like a strawman to me. The steel in the WTC was spaced out, and not clumped together.

    Strawman confirmed. Assuming steel is thin enough and spaced out enough and in direct contact with high temperatures, it will lose its strength and easily reach the atmospheric temperature of the fires around it.
    So wasn't the fire spread out too. Where in the NICSTAR1 do they have evidence of 1800 deg F. Just claiming something is a STRAWMAN doesn't PROVE that it is one. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 20 months ago. I have searched it dozens of time. They have paint deformation tests and microscopic steel analysis and they did furnace tests on floor sections and they have NO EVIDENCE of 1800 deg F and the floor sections didn't fail in the necessary time. The peculiar thing is that they want to claim lack of fire proofing weakened the floors but they haven't tested a floor section without fire proofing.

    That would have been the next logical thing to do.

    But if they did that and it DID NOT FAIL IN TIME then they would have egg all over their faces.

    They have a report where they show the oscillation of the south tower and say it oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after impact and the building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor even though that was 130 below the impact point. The kinetic energy of the plane had two effects. Structural damage in the impact zone and oscillating the entire building. But in order to compute the energy that did structural damage then the energy that deflected the building must be computed and subtracted. But to compute that energy the distribution of mass must be known. Where is that calculation ever done?

    There are only two places in the entire 10,000 pages where they say the distribution of weight/mass must be known for the analysis. One is about wind design and the other is in a report about shocks to suspended ceilings. LOL


  20. #1920
    Valued Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Suppose we short circuit all this talk about fire and temperatures.

    Imagine we had the north tower in its original condition.

    Imagine we could magically and instantaneously remove 5 levels, 90 to 94 inclusive. That would leave 16 stories in the air without support. They would fall 60 feet impacting the intact lower 89 stories at 44 mph. Now I think everyone would have to concede that removing 5 stories is more damage than the plane and fires could do.

    Now to analyze what would happen after impact we would need at least have to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building. How can conservation of momentum be computed without that? So why don't we have a table with such simple information after SEVEN YEARS? Why shouldn't people on both sides of the issue expect the OFFICIAL "WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS" to provide such simple information?

    A skyscraper must get stronger and heavier going down to support its own weight and resist the wind. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes may give the correct impression for distribution of volume but it has to be wrong for distribution of mass.


Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts