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

You don't specify if you're referring to Fahrenheight or Celsius. In any case, regardless of the temperature the fuel can reach in a jet plane engine, even NIST doesn't believe that that the jet fuel ignited fires got beyond 1000 Celsius (1832 Fahrenheit):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As far as I know, even Ryan Mackey hasn't claimed this to be the case.

You want to disagree both with alternate theory believers -and- the backbone behind the official story believers, go ahead, but I think I'll pass on responding to such claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly.

Ryan Mackey said much the same thing. David Ray Griffin explained it thusly:
****************************************
The Relevance of Erector Sets

I have to assume (in the absence of an explanation) that if Ryan Mackey thinks he has a bona fide reason for dismissing my Erector Set illustration as "not worthy of discussion" it must be based on a tacit assertion that the strength of a structure doesn't scale proportionally to its size — that a large steel framework is somehow significantly weaker relative to its own weight than a smaller one, all aspects being proportional. But is this really true?

One of the reasons steel is used in the construction of high-rise buildings is its relatively LIGHT weight in proportion to its strength and flexibility, particularly when formed into I-beams, H-beams and box columns. Large steel frame buildings are obviously very heavy, but they are also VERY strong.

If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.

The difficulty involved in crushing either structure with pressure applied from above, especially when compared to the downward force of its own weight, should yield an appreciation of the difficulty that would likewise be encountered in crushing one of the Towers.
****************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, explosives were required. I'm not sure if the plate thing has to do with NIST's final explanation or not, but again, I'm not going to go searching for the 'plate' thing now, just as I didn't go looking for the bolt thing (the fact that I found evidence that that theory was faulty was just coincidence). I think it makes the most sense to focus on and refute the -final- explanation from NIST and I have done so many times (or rather, I have quoted Steven Jones' refutation many times).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a very big 'if'. Essentially, the problem is this:
No one can investigate -every- claim. So we tend to investigate the claims that are drawing the most attention; there are mainstream alternate theories just as there are mainstream official theories.

True. What you may not be aware of, however, is that notables such as Steven Jones did so -after- weighing the evidence, not before. Ditto for the author of the '9/11 Mysteries' flick. In fact, after seeing something from truthers, he got angry and set out to prove them -wrong-, only to find out that it was the official story that was wrong.

For the record, at the beginning, I believed the official story myself. But then I started reading a book from Jim Marrs and things changed. I note that he -also- didn't immediately believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but as he came to learn more, his view changed.

I'm not sure when people began to see squibs, but regardless of when they started, the fact remains that they are quite visible. As to nanothermite, I'm not sure whether Steven Jones tested for it in particular or whether he simply found that the compound fingerprint was nanothermite. Finally, as I believe you know, I consider the 'la-zers' to be one of those 'out there' theories.

That's the way science works. I think it's the official story that has changed more often in regards to the WTC collapses then the alternate story, however.

I believe that the hologram believers were always on the fringe. And yes, I do believe there may be some misinformation agent(s) in their ranks.

You come up with that one yourself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

I would argue that the demolition theory not only derives from sound science; it's also the most plausible theory, far more plausible then the ever changing government theory on the cause of the WTC collapses.

Well I say that if you -can- prove to me that 9/11 follows the official story line that I'll change my tune. I simply don't believe that you can do so, because I believe that the evidence lies squarely in the alternate theory camp.

As I've mentioned, I've now seen 12 minutes of the 'not freakin' again' edition. I share the director's frustration, but my frustration is focused on SLC, not LC. Forcing myself to view more might be considered cruel and unusual punishment and I'm against torture ;-).

 

It’s annoying that you post the same things over and over as if they have never been discussed before. It’s as if you think you can overwhelm me with links and somehow that will convince me that I’m wrong. Its frustrating and it makes you seem unreasonable or forgetful.[/quote]

The fact that something was discussed doesn't mean it was refuted. If it wasn't refuted and I believe it to be true, I will certainly bring it up again if the occassion warrants it.

You see what was to the right of the firetruck? Here's a snapshot:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The video has a picture of what I believe was what the firetruck looked like after contact with said molten iron.

 

Does it even exist? I was talking about nanothermite myself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

According to whom?

Not at all. You can let them bask in all their glory ;-). If, on the other hand, you are trying to say that you have -refuted- them somewhere, just give me the link where you have done so and I will review said post.

 

ae911 is led by a complete idiot in the cardboard box guy Richard Gage. He provides amusement to debunkers.

Like the ‘scholars’ that list is padded out with people with irrelevant qualifications such as ‘Urban Activist’ and computer related professions. It only requires a petition to be signed; there is no actual verification of these people’s qualifications.

If they truly believe this and are behind the troothers then why don’t they submit some papers for peer review? If they are really qualified and familiar with the peer review process what is stopping them after all these years?

The arguments for a controlled demolition are incorrect, stupid or debunked. We have discussed most of them already in this thread do we need to go through it again?

So there isn’t really anything for me to ‘deal’ with. You argument is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. It’s like a Christian pointing out that there have been religious scientists as if that somehow matters.

As we have come to learn you believe in the conspiracy but are unable to defend your beliefs in a discussion. So you just post the same links over again and point out that there are other people who also believe the same thing.

What do criticisms of computer models have to do with anything? The floors were seen sagging! There are photos and video that confirm this. Can you not understand this?

You are making a fool of yourself.

What does that even mean? It leaned above the point of impact. Do you know what I am referring to?

Kevin Ryan is wrong and an idiot.

Ugh. Again with the comments that it hasn’t happened before. Anything that happens for the first time is a master conspiracy.

You discard all the critical evidence for the official explanation and desperately cling to the debunked claims of a few crackpots. They are your priests. Keep the faith Scott.

Squibs, claims of symmetrical collapse, ‘into it’s own footprint’, quote mining for ‘explosions, references to the work of crackpot Steven Jones. I could excuse someone for being convinced by this if they hadn’t done the research. However scott you have had these claims painstakingly debunked for you, so you have no excuse.

Thousands of gallons of jet fuel in an office building is not ‘negligible’.

In fact the hole provided by the planes entering the building actually assisted in the burning as it provided ventilation.

Yes but were the fires too high for firefighters to reach? Was the fire started with a small fire on one floor, which slowly grew and moved to the others over a few hours? Or did they start with a massive explosion over many floors? Did the sprinklers still work? Loss of fireproofing? Did they have thousands of gallons of jet fuel to get them going? Was the construction like a cage in a cage?

The flaws in their arguments have been pointed out to you over and over but you don’t want to hear it. You don’t want to actually think. You just want to believe everything they say.

 

But nothing will ever be refuted in your eyes. Even when you conceded on the absurd missile theory it was only to move to the equally stupid flyover theory.

To be honest I thought that was just sunshine on orange dust the first time I saw it. Why is the truck driving straight for it?

If that is molten metal you have the problem of proving that it was molten steel. It looks like the building has collapsed by that point (increasing the heat with friction) and it could be the remainder of the aluminium from the planes.

 

Yes.The whole claim that a fire did that is called one thing.

Many things in fact cast doubt on the whole official story.

 

Which would not burn for weeks either.

By questioning my sources you are trying to avoid what I say. If I mention someone known as a debunker you will just say ‘oh sure that’s what they would say’. It is a dodge. Think for yourself, doesn’t it make sense?

Glory? Oh my god.

You have been posted many links which you don’t read. Instead you see if the subject matter is mentioned in your tinfoil hat sites and then you claim the debunker has been debunked.

Why don’t we just focus on squibs as you seem to think it is among the most convincing evidence. I think even Richard Gage has admitted that one is wrong. As pointed out by Kenny the squibs are too slow to be demolition charges and appear to be compressed air being forced out.

 

If so, I doubt you were as specific as to what his objections were.

Ok, but simply because he believed this doesn't mean that he was right. Evidence doesn't require a person to believe any particular thing; it's simply evidence. Astaneh has said some things that, as deep44 from JREF states: "corroborate the many eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten steel at Ground-Zero."

My personal favourite is the following one, which goes beyond molten steel, to vaporized/evaporated steel (you've got to go way beyond the melting point of steel, which is 1300C/2400F, to beyond the boiling point of steel, which is 3000C/4500F, to get to that temperature):
****************************
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
****************************
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63

At temperatures like those, I believe that fireproofing would have been of no help; he found evidence that the fireproofing -itself- had melted:
The fireproofing that had been used to protect the steel also showed evidence of extreme temperatures. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...931A35753C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

His other mentions:
1- He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns: "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

2- In an interview in 2007 for PBS's Online Newshour, Astaneh-Asl said, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

I simply wanted to make it clear that my source was a mainstream media publication.

You may have noticed that my previous post mentioned quite a noteworthy witness of vaporized/evaporated steel on a certain I beam...

It would be interesting to know why, considering Dr. Barnett was clearly concerned with this evaporating steel. Perhaps a little pressure from above was applied to stifle that evidence?

The amount of testimonies that conflict with the official story boggle the mind. In regards to evaporated steel, Dr. Barnett is certainly not the only person to be concerned with evaporated steel. As I mentioned in my last post, one of the key official WTC investigators, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, personally saw proof of steel vaporization.

It seems that you yourself are doing your best to attempt to discard this evidence, which clearly doesn't sit well with the official story

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. If you can show a point wherein I discard evidence from a credible source that doesn't fit the alternate view, by all means, point it out.

If you feel that I have avoided a difficult question, don't hesitate to point it out.

The official story -is- full of holes and I certainly believe there's evidence that certain NIST individuals involved in the WTC investigation are being dishonest.

 

Despite your fervent desire to label Steven Jones a 'crackpot', the fact that, like all mormons, he believes that Jesus visited America doesn't make him so. Perhaps you may not have noticed, but when it comes to religious beliefs, people generally don't rely on a whole lot of evidence. Steven Jones, atleast, set out to find evidence that Jesus came to America. Personally, having seen Zeitgeist, I'm not sure that Jesus even existed as an actual person, but to each their own beliefs.

As to the 'vast majority' of structural engineers, from what I understand, structural engineers are a rare breed and highly dependent on government permissions to build. I believe Kevin Ryan made it clear that they're the last type of engineers that would want to rock the boat; not wanting to bite the hand that feeds it and all. In terms of engineers in general, however, there are currently 521 architects and engineers (including atleast one structural engineer) who question and/or downright disagree with the official 9/11 story. Here is their petition:
*******************************
The AE911Truth Petition:
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned [list of the 521 architects and engineers follows the petition]
*******************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Why don't you post a few excerpts from those 'peer reviewed engineering journals'? Having seen how easily the official story arguments for NIST were taken down, I have a strong feeling their arguments would fair no better.

I'm not going to be chasing down official story stuff. You want to make the government's case, except some material for me to take a look at.

Surely you have heard the old adage: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses"? Clearly, with the government on one side of the debate, 'peer reviewed journals' may be a bit hard to come by. Nevertheless, progress is certainly being made, slowly but surely.

Using base insults against an opponent only detracts from the points at hand. As I have mentioned, structural engineers are particularly beholden to the government and would thus probably be loathe to come out en masse against the government. However, atleast one has. But the most important point is that you don't have to be a structural engineer or even an engineer at all to realize that the official story regarding the WTC collapses is full of holes. All you require is an open mind and a certain amount of time to investigate the facts.

A toilet paper factory isn't a steel framed skyscraper, sorry.

It's already been shown to be a -probability-, never mind possibility.

Why do you believe that the demonstration was meaningless?

 

It's more resistant to flexing, but not to breaking. As to the WTC core, here's an excerpt from good article that describes how it had both steel -and- concrete, as well as the fact that the core only accounted for 20% of the gravity bearing load:
*******************************
The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
*******************************
http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html

Here's the start of another good article describing the core of the WTC towers:
*********************************************
The Core Structures
The Structural System of the Twin Towers

Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007. Although the drawings show the dimensions and arrangement of core columns, they do not show other engineering details such as the core floor framing. It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.

Core Denial

Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft:"
For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. 1
*********************************************
The article continues here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html


I also found the following video on the core to be quite good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

 

That's because of the issues of scale.

But, of course they are wrong. Even if it were an issue of the lightness of the beams (lighter than plastic, Scott? Really?), they cleverly omit the massive additional weight those beams were carrying - concrete, filler, office equipment, and so forth, not to mention airplane parts. So not only is their speculation on scale incorrect - Lego, I ask you; is this what Troof is down to? - but they avoid the additional load. There is no similarity whatsoever to their Connetix kit, although it does answer a few questions about the mentality of the movement, and for that reason is useful. You cannot possibly relate the load and weight of a building built with Legos or Bric-a-Blocs or plastercine to that of an actual building.

Then why did the plates fail? You seem to be at something of a theological impasse.

So why criticize NIST for missing out on some tests, then? No one can investigate every claim.

I regret to tell you this, but it doesn't.

What you are confused about here is the refutation of hypothesis, mixed with the avoidance of Type I error (false positive). You have already concluded the demolition of the WTC - as you have stated many times already - and are seeking evidence to bolster your position. You have alluded numerous times to your fervent belief in the demolition; thus, your "hypothesis" is no longer falsifiable. When we illustrate one problem after another to you, your tactic is to switch sub-hypotheses, not to question whether or not it could actually have been a demolition. This is not science, but belief, as you've said several times. The demolition of WTC is not a proven, observable phenomenon; the observed phenomenon is the collapse. There is no doubt it collapsed. The scientic question is the cause, which what you keep shifting your evidence on. And since you will not admit of the falsifiabiliy of your hypothesis, nor review evidence in some cases, and since your evidence keeps switching, it is no longer scientific. I'm sorry.

See, this is also the problem: fringes and ranks. It's a movement, which one could uncharitably call a cult, rather than a scientific panel.

But the facts of the government position are not in doubt: the temperature was enough to drop the steel strength, the aircraft hit all three buildings, the collapse wasn't free fall.

I'm sorry, Scott, but I really don't think this is true.

I'm sorry you're frustrated by it, but we must all examine evidence with an open mind.

Best,

Geoff

 

Definitely. Kent Hovind "holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Now let's see about Steven Jones:
**********************************
Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[1]
**********************************
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Steven-E.-Jones#Education

A little different, wouldn't you say?

I won't respond to the rest of your post, as you seem to be getting a little emotional again...

 

Bullsh*t, total and ridiculous amounts of bullsh*t.

Dude the actual inside of the engine where it burns is 2000 degress Celisus. And that's a tiny amount of jet fuel. The only way it would burn less is if it were in like the arctic, mixed with water at like a % (water) : 1 (fuel) ratio.


You are such bullsh*t.


Your like saying that if i light these 7 sticks of dynamite that can take down three houses, will only explode to the size of a firecracker.

 

Can you put together a sentence which doesn't have me feeling sorry for you?

Steel burning in fires at a temperature of 1832 degrees will be down to 10% or less strength. Bearing in mind that steel is holding up a building, why wouldn't it break? Concrete on the other hand doesn't lose much/any strength as a result of fire. This is why the buildings replacing the WTC are designed with a concrete core.

Silly structural engineers, eh? Why can't they see it was demolished and not due to fire?

You should probably know that I stopped reading your quoted articles from truther websites a LONG time ago. I'm just saying this to save you time. You could say this is very unscientific of me, but I don't care. You have proven a long time ago that you have bullshit evidence which funnily enough, isn't supported by the scientific community.

By finding it to be 'quite good', you become like an audience member of Kent Hovind who knows nothing about science, but enjoys that he is talking in a scientific manner to support their wild beliefs, ignorant to the fact that it is complete bullshit and not supported by the scientific community.

No, there is no difference.

As I have stated before, but not had you address them specifically yet, Steven Jones is a proven liar.

Why? Well I base this on one thing alone (although I could use countless other examples if I wanted to): The picture of fire fighters huddling over "molten steel" without having their faces melted off.

 

Because it was not caused by fire. Fire has never and will never cause buildings to collapse in that manner.

 

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.

Try finding in the NCSTAT1 report where they found evidence of 1800 deg F. Not the summaries that are even more BS.

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?

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?

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?

How could enough steel weaken in less than 1 hr and 45 minutes?

Why don't people who try to give the impression they know physics ask such an obvious question? The WTC averaged 770 tons of steel on each level but of course the quantity had to taper toward the top, as in any skyscraper. So why don't we have a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level by now. It is hilarious that the nation that put men on the moon can't provide such simple information about buildings designed before the moon landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik