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

I don't know what you mean. I also do not know why you seem to think i am your enemy. I can only speculate that that particular idea has been given to you perhaps by people you admire or follow and that you have readily embraced it. what a shame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you're my enemy HS, you're just my debate opponent. Don't take it personally.

And unlike you, no one has given me my ideas. I have formed them on my own with independent research and critical thinking. I'm no one's pawn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the end truth isn't a choice. You need to consider ALL the information, so a rebuttal like "you're making it up", or "go to your own website" is just a dismissal of certain information and only accepting selective information. It is now clear that information we were all exposed to during the event was controlled, and information counter to the official story was suppressed in order to guide us to certain conclusions, there are plenty of very clear examples. this is the power of the media. Truth is the first casualty of war right?
Are you aware of operation mockingbird?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media"
- William Colby, Former CIA Director

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My "you're making it up" statement was just me trying to interject some humor into this thread...I'm a smartass...it's what I do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just thought the whole "pyroclastic flow" comparison was so laughably ridiculous that it didn't need re-butting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How can it be air? is this some special air that is somehow visible? The air I breathe is not visible, my air is actually invisible! The ejecta are not air! it is thick debris being ejected from the towers at symmetrical points on the towers. It was visible and even captured on cameras miles away from the scene!

You might then argue that compressed air pushed out debris to form the visible ejecta. but you have to consider the fact that these ejections are jettisoned far below the collapse front, and if you consider these ejecta as part of an internal collapse, then simple timing measurements (anyone can do these timings with a stopwatch) reveal that such an internal gravity driven collapse is faster than freefall! There are other problems too, you have to explain why the ejecta are symmetrical to all 4 sides, you have to explain why random windows are not broken, you have to explain how the pressure built up on specific floors to the point of breaking windows, when the towers had many open shafts and stairwells all the way to the bottom of the building, not to mention the fact that the top of the building was not sealed like a bicycle pump would be - try pumping a bicycle type up when the piston is not sealed - it won't happen!
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

The speed of the ejecta (squibs) has been measured at 120mph. What speed would you estimate the squibs to be on "regular" demolitions? Also consider that the debris ejecta emanates from the core of the building, the inner tube which is many yards internal to the building, so you do not even see the initial movement of the ejectas.

 

A typically demolished building, yes. However, given enough explosives, you can certainly make the debris from a symetrical collapse go beyond the footprint. There is a real problem here for those who believe that the majority of the buildings were brought down by their own weight, however; the more debris didn't come down in the footprint of the building, the less debris is around to supposedly crush the rest of the building. From what I understand, even if -all- the debris fell in its own footprint, this wouldn't be possible; this is just making it even more obvious explosives had to have been used to bring down the buildings.

A&E's source is 9/11 Research, a source of information that I have found to be valid time and again. Here is the info from their source page:
************************************

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Explosive Ejections of Dust and Pieces

* Thick dust clouds spewed from towers in all directions, at around 50 feet/second.
* Solid objects were thrown ahead of the dust -- a feature of explosive demolition.
* The steel was thoroughly cleansed of its spray-on insulation.
* Some pieces of the perimeter wall were thrown laterally 500 feet.
* Aluminum cladding was blown 500 feet in all directions.
* Blast waves broke hundreds of windows in buildings over 400 feet away.
************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/expulsion.html

I'm not sure on this particular point; perhaps Headspin can address it...

 

If a skyscraper collapsed with me in it, I would be crushed between floors, my remains would end up under the rubble pile.

How did the 700 bone fragments less than 1cm long end up on top of the Bankers Trust building?

As you can see in the picture, the bones could not have come from the plane impacts, the planes were going in the opposite direction, and wtc2 is in between the exit point of flight 11 from wtc1 and Bankers Trust.
So how did the bone fragments get on top of the Bankers Trust building without the help of explosives when the towers came down?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Alright, I disagree with you on the idea that the the floors could have pancaked to begin with and I believe there's a lot of evidence that supports this. But let's assume for a second that you're right on that one; where are you getting this info that 'the force of each floor falling on to the other was still enough to nudge the perimeter columns outward'? And as to the 'nudge' part; you sure 500 feet would qualify as a 'nudge'?

Thermate packs quite a punch; you may find that thermate is not exactly a common material for demolitions or for anything else at this point; from what I understand, it's a high tech U.S. military explosive.

 

Where does the claim say that the steel core didn't survive a few moments after the collapse? The point is it was completely destroyed at amazing speed.

Their source material for their claim is here:
***********************************
Shredding of Steel

Twin Towers' Steel Frames Ripped to Small Pieces

This section of a larger photograph of the North Tower's destruction shows metal objects -- steel column sections and aluminum cladding -- being propelled away from the Tower.

A feature of the collapses that is less obvious than the symmetrically mushrooming tops or the vast clouds of concrete dust is their effect on the towers' steel frames.

The only large remnants of the towers standing after the collapses were base sections of the perimeter walls extending upward several stories. Some of these sections were about 200 feet wide by 80 feet tall. Virtually all of the remaining steel was broken up into small pieces:

* There were no remnants of the core structures that rose much above the rubble piles.
* Most of the perimeter walls above the standing bases were broken up into the three-floor by three-column prefabricated sections, and many of those sections were ripped apart at the welds.
* There were no large sections of the corrugated pans underlaying the floor slabs or the trussing beneath them.

If it were possible for the towers to have collapsed of their own weight, they would have exhibited a pattern of destruction very different from this. What would the collapse look like if all structure throughout a tower suddenly lost 95 percent of its strength, leaving the building too weak to support gravity loads?

* The core columns, being thicker than perimeter columns, and abundantly cross-braced, would have deflected falling rubble, and would have out-survived the perimeter walls.
* The accumulation of forces as the collapse progressed would have damaged portions of the outer wall closer to the ground more than higher portions, despite the thicker gauge of the steel lower in the tower.
* The rubble pile would have contained a stack of floor platters, since gravity would have pancaked, not shredded, them.
***********************************

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/steel.html

 

Thermate, aside from being a high tech incendiary, is also a very high powered explosive.

Thermate has many names: nano thermite and super thermite are 2 other terms for it.

I grant you that few people knew much about thermate in 2001. However, people within NIST and the Department of Defense were the people who knew most about thermate/nano-thermite:
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

A thermite signature can only come from one thing: thermite. If it could come from something else, it wouldn't be called a thermite signature. In terms of this thermate signature, Headspin put it quite well in his response to your post on this point:
the chemical fingerprint signature of a thermite reaction was found in the dust
it was found in abundance
it was found immediately after "collapse"
it was found in various sample types
it was found at the nanoscale
it was found at the microscale
it was found at the macroscale

 

Kenny, I notice that you seem not to have addressed point number 14 of A&E's 15 points. Perhaps you missed it by mistake. Here it is once more:
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

"If blast waves destroyed these windows"
what windows are we talking about?
what if blast waves AND debris destroyed these windows? that would produce an irregular pattern of broken windows.

"then we would expect ALL windows to be smashed in the local area in a UNIFORM pattern"
what if the blast wave was not uniform? I'm picturing a blast wave emanating from the core of the towers. it passes through the windows in between the external columns. A single blast wave would change into many small blast waves as it exited the windows. You would in effect have an interference pattern similar to a wave through a diffraction grating. This would give a mix of overpressures and underpressures with regions of zero pressure in between.
Therefore I don't think you can assume that ALL windows would be blown out.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=diffraction grating&btnG=Search Images&gbv=2
blast waves are unpredicatble, when a blast wave occurs you could survive it relatively unscathed, yet the person standing next to you could have been shredded by it, at least that is what i have read in accounts. the diffraction grating example creating an interference pattern with smaller waves cancelling each other out at certain points supports this.

 

here is the actual appendix report, (it slipped into the official report after the main report's publication).

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

 

Let's assume for a moment that the WTC steel could have been heated to 1000C in 40 minutes, which I doubt (x piece of steel in y condition is not the same thing as the WTC building). Steven Jones makes it clear that even NIST doesn't believe that the fires were at that temperature for more then 15 to 20 minutes:
**********************************
Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144; emphasis added.)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)
**********************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

By visible deformations, do you mean -large- visible deformations? Also, can I see them?

 

From what I can see, the south tower didn't rectify itself- it simply disintegrated in mid air just like the rest of the tower:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg
You can't say -that- was pancaking, since it was the top portion.

 

The fact that an inspector found softening and twisting of the steel only means that -something- softened and twisted it (explosives could certainly manage it), not that there was any evidence that the jet fuel or office fires did it.

 

Sure, they were some of the toughest buildings out there.

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core.

 

There is only one comment regarding evaporated steel and the later conclusion by the team was that the steel did [not] reach anywhere near those temperatures. So you ignore the latter, more detailed report but cling to the early comment. There is no evidence to corroborate this and it is contradicted by that teams own findings.[/quote]

I don't ignore the latter. -However-, I -do- find it very suspicious. I mean, the comment about evaporated steel was made in the New York Times by Dr. Jonathan Barnett:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...AA15752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Let's take a look at who Dr. Barnett is:
***********************************
Dr. Jonathan R. Barnett is a Professor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). He holds appointments in Fire Protection engineering and mechanical engineering and is the co-Director and co-founder of the WPI Melbourne Project Center. Dr. Barnett received his undergraduate, masters and doctorate from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He is a fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the National Fire Protection Association, the American Society of Testing and Materials Committee E-5, and the International Association of Fire Safety Science. He has held appointments as the Editor of the SFPE Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, President of the New England Chapter of the SFPE and Chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers Committee on Fire Protection.His work and research in fire protection engineering is extensive, including most recently his participation in the Building Performance Assessment Team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
***********************************
http://www.aldeilis.net/english

Not exactly someone who would make a casual mistake on such things, don't you think?

Furthermore, if Dr. Barnett made a mistake after having had his statement on evaporated steel published in the New York Times, don't you think it'd make sense to have made a retraction? And yet, I have seen no such thing occur. Surely you agree that there should be an investigation as to why his finding was not included in the report?

 

I'm simply stating NIST's conclusion in its 2004 report titled
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster Project #3: Analysis of Structural Steel Update:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

At present, I -personally- still believe that the steel became molten and some probably evaporated, as Dr. Barnett stated.

Since the aforementioned 2004 report, I agree that NIST has updated their assessment of how high the temperature of steel could have gotten, although they never state that the -steel- could have reached 1000C; only that the air temperature could have reached it for 15 to 20 minutes.

It matters because if the jet fuel and/or office fires couldn't have done it, it must have been caused by something else, such as explosives.

Even Kenny thinks it would have taken 40 minutes for 1000C air temperature to translate into 900C steel.

In terms of the official story, it gave up on such temperatures being induced by jet fuel fires a while back.

From Steven Jones "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
*******************************
We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800C… (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)​

But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800C.
*******************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones