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

The fact that Cooper said many things doesn't take away from what he said about 9/11.

Aside from cooper, around 3000 on 9/11, 4000 US soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis? I guess you could chalk it all up to coincidence..

Losing strength is not the same thing as giving way. In any case, Ryan wasn't arguing that the steel didn't lose its strength, only that it didn't melt, something that Dr. Brown, the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers, stated on 9/11 (This is stated in the following link: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html , search for brown). So much for some of these 'experts'.

Ah, I get it. You don't consider it evidence. But I do.

What you seem to have established is that NIST members espouse this point of view. NIST has been challenged in the past and continues to be challenged, however. Here is a report from almost a year ago regarding a challenge by 2 professors of one of NIST's reports:
"Professors Make Legal Challenges to NIST 9/11 World Trade Centre Report"
http://www.prleap.com/pr/92756/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From what I understand, it was Ross's eyewitness account. However, I have seen footage where I believe I can see the bombs going off like this as well. If I come across some and remember your request, I'll link it.

Essentially, yes.

He's certainly not the only one to discredit the pancake theory. Today I posted some information on others who discredit the pancake theory in a response to Sock Puppy (search for 'pancake'):
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1990739&postcount=187 .

If the people responsible for 9/11 wanted to get caught, I can certainly agree with you. However, since I don't believe this, I believe they used the planes to misdirect people's attention.

As I post in the link above, many of the people who built the towers believe the pancake theory is impossible.

KennyJC, who is actually on your side, believes that it would have been much more complex then that. I was discussing this with him over in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1990240&postcount=223

Not very long considering the amount, but 'being there' for a few months doesn't mean that it was meaningfully analyzed.

What was suspicious is that they wanted to remove it so quickly without first properly analyzing it.

If you knew that the people allowed to analyze the debris were on your side, you could breathe more easily now, couldn't you?

No, rather that I respect Michael Ruppert and for this reason I will withhold judgement on who is right here. Now could you answer my question?

I would think it would have made more sense to analyze it where it had fallen. I also imagine that only government officials were allowed to analyze it. Also, could you cite a source showing me that it was analyzed further at a scrapyard?

So what if the location wasn't a secret? The original location of all the scrap certainly wasn't a secret. The point is that so long as only certain government officials were permitted to analyze it, it wouldn't have made much of a difference. Apparently a little of the debris was spirited away, however, or Dr. Steven Jones would never have been able to get his hands on some of the metal and dust..

Or maybe they were worried that someone would take a piece of debris while he was taking his break. Maybe it even happened.

Just answer me this: there was -so- much debris. Why couldn't a little have been given to people who weren't so closely linked to the government?

Not much was needed. And apparently on non government agent managed to get some anyway. But he may never be able to prove it, since he was never officially given anything.

Knowing you, you'll probably say it's no good as well. But you may want to take a look; perhaps you'll find some flaw you can point out ;-). Here's a link with english subtitles:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924

I prefer it when it has subtitles myself, but you can always go to the main site itself which doesn't have them:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Not by a long shot.

I tend to save content, not links; I probably should, but for some reason my web browser keeps on erasing new bookmarks. Anyway, my previous posts here where I've used links are actually helping me a lot

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I suppose you could say that I'm religious, although I don't belong to any religious institution. I like to believe that God is everything. No one argues whether everything exists; the argument would essentially start when we get to how conscious we believe everything to be.

I have cited more than this. I also have my own logical reasoning to guide me along.

I think I could tell you to do the same in some cases. But I myself am perfectly content to present you with evidence counter to your claims. If you wish, however, you can give up trying to persuade me that your views are infallible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He churns out plenty; there's a reason people get into so much conspiracy area, and it's not sanity. No, let us debate WTC 7 on the basis of the evidence alone.

And? They were wrong, apparently. None of them had ever seen such a fire following the crash of an airplane into the Towers. Where is this audiotape? Who is cited on it?

How would they have "softened up" the structure? Why would this have been necessary? The top part of the towers was an unstoppable mass. What was it - thirty stories or so of building? How is the support of any given floor going to resist that?

You spend a great deal of time debunking the pancake theory, but let me position your arguments in context: so, without the debated 'softening up', what do you expect would have happened? The collapse would have...stopped? And why exactly would the evil Bushites have demolished the building anyway? Wouldn't the use of such charges, resulting in what is widely misinterpreted as a freefall - but which was not a freefall - have raised suspicion? Did the conspiracy not think of this? What if the building had not collapsed all the way? Wouldn't the investigation have located the charges that didn't go off then?

I know, and it's brilliant, even if I do say so myself. Don't be awed, though: I actually do this kind of thing all the time.

No, I was referring to your dismissal of "boulderism" as argument from authority. Argument from popularity would also be very relevant.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm arguing. Is your engineer actually saying the core was made of a single piece of steel? I think he would be mistaken anyway.

Lots of evidence exists that explosives were used.

You have a pick of several explanations for that, actually: i) cooking steel in the rubble pile with the pack above it, ii) melted steel on the bridge after the truck crash a few months ago, iii) melted aluminum from the airplane. Can you explain why it can be none of these? If so, I might lend your thesis some support.

Having worked with many people of government departments, I can tell you you expect too much of them.

Well, you don't provide any realistic evidence of your thesis.

The pile of rubble on the burning remnants of the building, which might have melted the steel.

Steel melted in a gas truck crash:

It's not the only example, I think. Now personally, I just think the steel was weakened (as you'll know, steel loses 50% of its support strength at 500C or so). I recommend this link also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

The aluminium comes from the airplane itself, and melts at a much lower temperature. The orangy glow observed probably represents molten aluminium mixed with office materials such as carpet.

Rather, I call the 9/11 crowd "Troofers" and the debunkers just debunkers or "truthers".

So do you feel that you're more or less susceptible to wild stories?

Then there we are.

The Messiah Dylan Avery. All hail the lipless wonder. May the glory of his light cure all forms of acne, present and future.

SP

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also, if the planes were just a distraction, why didn't they just blow the thing out from the bottom, as had already been tried? It would have been far more believable.

 

I thought this thread would feature photos of a jew having his pants pulled down, and perhaps his crack thumbed open.

 

Or atleast that's what you believe.

As if I'd been trying to do otherwise.

Or they were right; problem being that they weren't expecting explosives.

Airplanes have crashed in steel structured buildings before; but such a building has never collapsed because of it. I'll cite a bit more to show you reliable the government is on these types of things:
****
As noted by reporter Christopher Bollyn, "The fact that veteran firefighters had a 'coherent plan for putting out' the 'two pockets of fire', indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government's claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower's collapse.
****

The audiofile in 2 formats can be found here:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Excerpts of the tape can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/firefighters.htm

I've already mentioned 2:
Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca. I'm assuming there's more but haven't checked all of the transcript excerpts yet.

By making the basement brittle, it would have been softened up, just as military targets are softened up via air power before using ground forces.

I theorize it was done so that the secondary explosions that would finish the job wouldn't have to be as loud.

First of all, the real question is, why did the top floors begin to collapse from the top to begin with? Shaman brought up the Windsor tower of spain in a previous point, and I brought up a very good point; here's the exchange:
****

I'll respond to the rest in another post...

 

Possibly, atleast on floors above the basement. As to the basement itself, I myself am puzzled on that one. I can easily imagine that a web site has a good theory, but I don't have one.

Not if people believed (and a great many still do) that the buildings were knocked down by the planes.

Perhaps, but I assume that they were not so unprofessional as to let that happen. However, even if it hadn't, they'd probably get FEMA to cart away the evidence anyway, all the while pretending to properly investigate.

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Actually I've been doing some thinking; perhaps your boulderist theory is in fact the pancake theory? I mean, the building -did- start collapsing from the top then? And the pancake theory has been discredited.. so therefore your theory has been discredited ;-). At this point, you will say (someone already has anyway) that a theologist doesn't have the credentials to discredit the theory and that's when I'll point out that the WTC architect and other experts who built the towers have stated that the World Trade tower was designed to withstand plane crashes.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm arguing. Is your engineer actually saying the core was made of a single piece of steel? I think he would be mistaken anyway.[/quote]

From Zeitgeist:
****
Pancake theory, according to which the fires, while not melting the steel, heated it up sufficiently to cause the floors weakened by the airplane strikes to break loose from the steel columns, and this started a chain reaction.
"So, you would expect then, from that theory, which is the official theory, to see a whole stack of floors, piled up on top of each other, and then a spindle of core columns standing too."
The core of the twin towers consisted of 47 massive steel columns. If the floors had broken loose from them, these columns would have still been sticking up into the air a thousand feet. The plane did not cut all those core columns..
****

It'd be nice to believe that you've suddenly had a change of heart, but I'm guessing you just forgot to snip that bit of text away from my own post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I hadn't heard of this truck thing. Must be a new twist. Anyway, the truck must have been able to displace itself in multiple locations, including WTC 7. Another excerpt from Zeitgeist:
****
Dr. Steven Jones:
"I started looking at the molten metal. All 3 buildings, both towers, in the rubble, in the basement areas, and building 7, there's these pools of molten metal."
For well over 6 weeks after the collapse, hot spots of over 2000F were documented in the debris. That is 500F hotter then jet fuel even burns.
Dr. Steven Jones:
"So I'm looking through the official reports, what do they say about the molten metal. They say nothing. Now wait a minute. This is important evidence. So where'd that come from?"
****

I can both agree and disagree with that statement

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I know that the government can at times move sloth-like but I am rather impressed that they've been able to have so many people still believing the official story regarding 9/11. I guess in the ending that you can only get people to believe what they want to believe. And I think a lot of people aren't so keen on believing that dark elements of their own government could do such things.

Pish tosh, my dear man, can you not see that I provide copious amounts ;-)?

You're citing a truck that crashed on April 29, 2007 in Oakland. What on earth does that have to do with the WTC collapses in 2001?

The evidence is clear that there were molten pools of metal. Not weakened. The government agents in charge did the best they could to cover up this embarrassing fact by simply ignoring it completely as I've mentioned above.

I find the following line amusing:
"3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. "

They expect their readers to not even ask -why- they believe it would 'present insurmountable challenges'.

Well, we know that NIST concluded this. But from what I've heard, NIST is hardly to be trusted.

I see.

Much less, which is why I essentially got out of a certain religion before my mother did, at the age of 17. My mother and my sister got out of all of that a fair amount later. I believe my father's skepticism helped a lot.

Yes, yes, very clever of you. I think it would be best for me to put it to you in a way that makes it a little more clear. This is what the paper said about his firing:
"South Bend firm's lab director fired after questioning federal probe".

In other words, don't question a federal probe; not if you value your job anyway. Even if you're not even working for the government. Big Brother isn't something to question.

Until I googled his name, I hadn't known he was the director of loose change. Anyway, I really liked the parts of his film that I've seen.

 

If my knowledge of demolition is good enough here (someone correct me if I'm mistaken), I believe that in order to destroy the building without destroying a lot of other things as well, it really had to be done carefully, and the charges placed throughout the building.

 

Not necessarily. The collision and subsequent explosions affected the whole building, not just the top few floors. As I said earlier people below thought there was an earthquake. The building is solid. When it takes a hit like that up the top the lower floors will still feel it and that isn't even taking into account crashing lifts or jet fuel down the elevators. That's why I wanted clairification on what was reported. Are we talking about someone's monitor falling on their head or was the whole floor an inferno?

Planes loaded with thousands of liters of jet fuel had smashed into the building and ignited many floors. These things certainly could have happened before the collapse – “In the towers there were partial floor collapses, falling elevators, likely debris falling down elevator shafts, fuel vapors igniting, bursting pipes, and perhaps steel failing, electrical systems shorting, and pressurized containers from the buildings and aircraft exploding."
The explosions at the Madrid Tower were before the collapse as well. You are kidding yourself if you think the banging noises had to be bombs.

I thought we were talking about testimony on the day where the firemen convinced themselves it couldn’t have been bombs for fear of losing their jobs.

As far as losing jobs goes, it is now seven years later. You don’t think one fireman has retired or left his job since then? Are they still scared? Are you going to suggest that someone will kill them? Although no one has killed Isaac….

The whole building shook when the planes hit. Why are you so shocked that the lower floors were damaged?

That’s right the steel parts collapsed. Interesting point huh? The Windsor tower had a concrete core. WTC did not.

But many people have said so much more. There are productions on a much grander scale now and the people behind them are well known and no one is dying. It is fantasy.

A dodge, a tenuous link and an appeal to emotion all in one….

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So someone incorrectly said the steel melted. Not exactly a smoking gun. I’m not going to discuss melted steel because it is up there with “pull it” as the most stupid and regularly debunked argument.

Okay, do you think that fuel would shoot down the elevator shafts? If no, then why not?

So you do think it appeared like it was pancaking? To do that the floors would have to be loaded with explosives that no one saw installed, the explosives would have to go unnoticed by the 50, 000 odd people what work there, they would not be affected by the impact of the planes or the jet fuel, then they would need to be set off almost to the millisecond to create an illusion of pancaking, while not looking like explosives were going off and then nothing was found afterwards. All to create the illusion that planes could bring a building down because it had to be done with planes. Does that really sound plausible to you? If you are the government trying to plan a conspiracy so you can attack Iraq would you really go that degree? Why not plan a conspiracy that is less likely to be found out?

Can’t you accept that a building could fall without all that imaginative planning? If you say ‘no’ my next question would be – Based on what?

Yes we are looking at motives not evidence but when you have shaky evidence, and I’m being generous there, to support an unlikely theory I think need to rethink what you are supporting.

Why would they get caught? If you are capable of rigging the WTC with explosives on nearly every floor which no one found before or afterwards then you could get away with planting a couple of really big bombs at the bottom.

It seems you could rationalize any absurd, needlessly complex conspiracy theory with ‘misdirection’. Don’t you agree?

The core columns were damaged by the impacts and then weakened by the steel. So no they would not stick out while the floors collapsed around them.

The comments after that, which are form one person, are not about the pancake theory but whether the tower could withstand the impact of a plane. They did. So saying “many of the people who built the towers believe the pancake theory is impossible.”, is an exaggeration isn’t it?

It was there for months, thousands of people were walking around the rubble and it yes was analyzed. Nothing suspicious here.

Oh please. This is definitely one of the more stupid parts of the conspiracy theory.

So if it was analyzed properly it doesn’t matter because it was done by the conspiracy people. When you have these preconceived ideas it doesn’t matter what evidence would be presented because you can apply post hoc rationalization.

While I know of him, I don’t know much about him so no I wouldn’t say that I’m a fan.

It was from 911 myths although the original link is now dead.
http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

Stop being dramatic. Thousands of people had access to the area for many months.

”A team was quickly assembled by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. It also involved the American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.[29] ASCE ultimately invited FEMA to join the investigation, which was completed under the auspices of the latter”
In the eyes of a Cter any organization with the right qualifications would probably be linked to the government somehow.

Perhaps the steel should have been given to all professors of theology for a once over as well.

Many NGOs still rely on the government for funding so … you know ..

Is there anything in particular that Zeitgeist brings up that is new?

My point being that discussions on nearly anything can go for many pages.

In the case of 911 there are so many claims. As I said, quantity not quality. With conspiracies, particularly these days with internet and youtube, there can be smoke with no fire.

 

So what? Alex Jones also “predicted” 9/11 just a few months before it happened, and he is still free to shout his lies with a megaphone at ground zero.

All of the above relates to your comments about the sound of the tower collapsing could also include demolition explosives. Basically, if you can cite on any video featuring the collapse any sound of a bomb, state the minute and second of the video and I will listen. You will fail in this, because there was no bomb to be heard over the top of the collapse, which would have definitely been the case since explosives required would be heard for miles and the collapse wouldn’t.

There are several words I use for people who read these kinds of books: credulous, gullible, fantasists, paranoid, delusional etc. etc.

Wow! Hold the front page: Remind me of this proof of demolition materials as it must have escaped me? You are going to mention Steven Jones aren’t you?

Why don’t you watch the same video of the 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire? Notice how it is totally destroyed and no large pieces remain. That’s what happens when a building falls apart. Explosives are not what are responsible for the total break up of a building, they merely destroy the important columns and gravity does the rest. I’m shocked that you even need me to cite a source on this as its common sense.

Well my 10 story apartment building video completely debunks the following quote: “Even Concrete Buildings Don't Disintegrate in Mid-air”. The apartment building was destroyed almost completely even before it hit the ground.

NIST says that to destroy a column, you need a minimum blast power to get the job done. So you’ve tried to avoid this bullet by saying lots of smaller blasts were used instead of one big one, which I am pretty sure would do only superficial damage to the columns, and not only that, it would further complicate the whole “demolition” beyond more than it would have to. This does not even make sense as far as conspiracy theories go. If I was in charge of the conspiracy I would just say that crashing the planes into the building would be enough to do whatever it is we wanted to do.

Firefighters lost so many colleagues that day, and they were in the thick of it. If anybody knows it was a conspiracy, it is these guys. And that you say that all of them are easily persuaded to stay silent is a disgusting allegation. If I had explicit knowledge, I would not keep silent for anyone, and if so many of my colleagues had the same knowledge I did, then threats could not quell such a large group.

And what was his expertise? “Kevin Ryan is a former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a subsidiary of Underwriters Labs(UL) responsible for water testing.”

And he was not fired for “whistle blowing”… Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.”

Good for him.

The problem is, that there is no evidence (despite what you may claim) of any controlled demolition in any tower, this is why people’s credibility are shot when they speak out about such things. They are morons.

Or else there were no “bombs”.

Or perhaps the fact that it didn’t resemble a controlled demolition is because it simply wasn’t one.

Wait a minute… I thought you were saying bombs brought down the tower? Now you say it was thermite? Thermite is a slow incendiary (slow compared to explosive devices). Violent as it may be, it would certainly not be capable of destroying each floor in milliseconds.

And I already explained the dust clouds. For fuck sake, conspiracy theorists must be the only people on the planet who expect a building to collapse without mass amounts of dust being blown into the surrounding area.

This is Dr. Jones responding to a question about peer review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRfCAaEyLk

Stop making excuses for him, Just submit it to a civil engineering journal. Until then, he has nothing.

I’m still waiting. CT’s have never put a cohesive theory together explaining how such a thing would be possible.

Maybe if the drills lasted about a year.

Notice how you are just making all this up from no evidence whatsoever.

I was hoping you would tell me.

Just read firefighter quotes regarding WTC7. I won’t post firefighter quotes again as I did that multiple times with Ganymede. Check them yourself or read my previous posts.

Baseless.

I find this very strange. He states this to a conspiracy writer, then never mentions it again? I can not find any other publication on this guy other than these same comments from the same source. Why doesn’t he take a more public stance and reiterate these comments? Oh, he fears for his life, right… Well that answers that.

No member of NIST says the steel melted. It is even on their FAQ on their website.

Right.

How so? All cameras reveal that the top of the building begins to fall without a single sound being heard. This is just a blatant lie on your part.

So all the construction engineers and demolition experts around the world have been fooled, except for fans of Jim Marr and Alex Jones and Loose Change? Please...

Do a search on you tube for “Hardfire Mark Roberts Loose Change”, in the debate, Mark Roberts gets Loose Change to admit that the collapse initiated from fire damage. However Loose Change went on to say that the top of the building that collapsed should have slid off on to the street below leaving the rest of the building intact.

That’s simply not true. That’s like saying Creationism has debunked evolution. No matter how big their confidence is, it’s still lies and falsehoods. You are not a rational person, and you have revealed that to me in this debate.

This is probably ignored of its context, something truthers do a lot. I’m aware that there was ignited jet fuel exploding through elevator shafts on the lower floors. NIST interviewed people describing this. So this is my best guess at the moment.

More quote abuse from 9/11 truthers. Cacchioli had this to say about this quote:
Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html

..the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. “We smelled kerosene,” Mike recalled, “I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs”...
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

Proof that jet fuel exploded all the way down to the basement level.

Discredited by truthers? Pardon me for being underwhelmed. Anyway, I use the term pancaking loosely. I don’t know what the experts say about it or even if it was an actual ‘pancake’ effect. What is clear though is that the general mass of materials representing the hundreds or thousands of tons hitting the floor below results in that floor giving way. Simple to understand for intelligent people.

Fuck you. You are a lying scumbag.

The consensus among genuine experts massively outweigh any “experts” in the truth movement. Again I point you to Richard Gage comparing the WTC to cardboard boxes.

 

Well, if you can find a physical reason that any of the other floors would have held up thirty stories of building, please go ahead.

I think you mean to say "the vast majority of people", supported by the unambigous part of the evidence.

But they were so unprofessional as to let the building enter "free fall"?

It's not the same thing at all, really, since I'm not arguing any sequential collapse, but the simple ignorance of resistance by the above mass, which makes far more sense. But let's examine your theory here: is it really a theologian who has "discredited" the pancake theory? Which individual would this be again? And the architect of WTC - did he also say that the building was built to survive both an impact and the ensuing fires? Even if the fire protection was scraped off? If he did, I guess that would be it. I mean, after all, engineers are never wrong, and their promises never exceed their claims. In particular, ships described as "unsinkable" are never, ever, actually very sinkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicoll_Highway_collapse
http://www.open2.net/forensic_engineering/riddle/riddle_01.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkenhead_Dock_Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_Creek_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Mine_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_2008_Manhattan_construction_crane_collapse

This why there has never been a need for such a field as one, say, devoted to finding out why engineering thingies went wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_mode_and_effects_analysis

In fact, the prospect of engineering failure is such a non-topic that there is not a single journal on the issue.

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30190/description#description

And you'd never, moreover, find a list of failed mechanical artifacts on the web, say.

http://materials.open.ac.uk/mem/index.htm

Frankly, this issue is most clearly exemplified by commercial aircraft, which in true Vonnegutian equanimity, have never, ever just fallen from the sky (unless George Bush were at the helm, I mean).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_crashes_caused_by_mechanical_failure

Or bridges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bridge_disasters

And particularly not for something as critical as nuclear power plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear_accidents

Why in fact, you'd never find a gaggle of four-eyed physicists gibbering in excitement at the prospect of hurling very tiny particles into other particles at relativistic speeds, never completely sure of whether or not the impact might cause, say, the entirely of creation to unravel just because they want to see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

In our perfect world, nothing ever goes wrong, thank Myuu.

And, while falling, the debris couldn't have torn the columns down anyway? The majority of the weight was actually borne by the perimeter

I'm not an engineer, but this does not sound like solid steel columns to me. It sounds like pieces welded together, as above.

Are we now going to start this sort of quibbling?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For shame. Either steel melts via petrol fire or it doesn't. Which is it then? You can't just ignore evidence because it doesn't suit you.

Which are what? Steel? Aluminium? What? What does the good Dr. Jones know?

And? Has Dr. Jones never been camping? I don't think I'm mistaken when I say that the embers are the hottest part of the fire. Ash and dirt are very good insulators, and I don't doubt for a second that a fire smouldering there might reach a couple thousand degrees. However, where is Dr. Jones' evidence, again?

Some may indeed be, but not I. I merely understand the evidence and the meaning of coincidence.

Melted steel, silly Troofer. Melted steel. Melted by gasoline fire. Are you going to carry on like this then?

Supposition on all counts. First, demonstrate these foundry pools of simmering metal. Second, prove they were steel and not aluminum from the plane. Or the bloody building, even.

You have missed the critical statement. I have bolded the text above. So you're really committed to your story, then, in the face of everything? Or did you honestly miss it? Because in conjunction with your willful attempt to dismiss the truck accident, I'm starting to seriously wonder.

Here we go - 'idle rumour suggests I shouldn't trust them'. They went around collecting all this evidence, see, and that bodes not well. Why can't they just weigh a witch like we used to do in the old days? Stephen Jones and that idiot radio announcer are like the most vociferous peasants in the mob, shaking their pitchforks and demanding the death of Mary the Apothecary because their sheep lost four lambs this spring, unknowing or uncaring about the existence of bacteria. It's sad.

That's their take on it, but you yourself suggested a simpler alternative.

"Liked", not "found reasonable". I suggest you continue your internet education with this film:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

I've seen both. Will you now avail yourself of 'alternative' information, or stick to the official Troofer version of the facts?

Cheers

SP

 

Molten metal

Well atleast you admit the possibility.

People below were treated to an explosion -before- the plane even hit. Almost immediately afterwards, the plane itself hit. I admit I don't know why the basement was bombed momentarily before the plane itself hit, but there are witnesses who will tell you this was the case.

No fireball could have done this:
*************************************************************
"Mike Pecoraro told The Chief Engineer magazine he was working in the 6th sub-basement of the North Tower when the lights flickered. This was followed by a loud explosion. Pecoraro and a coworker made their way up to a C level machine shop but found it "gone." There was nothing there but rubble", recalled Pecoraro. "We're talking about a 50-ton hydraulic press- gone!"
*************************************************************

If the Madrid Tower burned because of arson, who's to say they didn't add some explosives? In any case, that building didn't collapse, despite a bona fide raging inferno that was only put out after 16 hours, not the paltry 1 or 2 weak fires from 9/11. There's one thing you seem to be forgetting with all your ideas of so much internal fires; fires need a lot of air. They didn't have much in the case of 9/11.

There was no specific day that I'm aware of when they were afraid of losing their jobs. I definitely think -someone- should be investigating why it is that Isaac and other firemen believe that James Woolsey might have their jobs if they speak up.

Sure. But what I'm talking about is being dismissed from the job for daring to speak out. Apparently, though, they've kept quiet enough.

Who knows, maybe. But perhaps the threat of losing their jobs was enough.

It's the extent of the damage. Not to mention the difference between one shake and multiple explosions.

Steel is stronger then concrete.

I just listened to William Cooper's broadcast. He doesn't seem to say much beyond the fact that Osama wanted to commit more terrorist acts. But a lot of people knew that. I have heard of people who knew much more then this before the event.

Ok, forget the Cooper bit, but my point is that a lot of people have died as a result of what happened on 9/11.

If it had just been some nameless type, it'd be one thing. But it was the project engineer for the construction of the twin towers. I wonder if he has ever explained how he came to such a faulty conclusion.

Alright, I've heard that in the twin towers, the argument is that the metal is from the planes. I have seen no evidence that the metal was even aluminium (and this is important, because jet fires can't melt steel), but there it is. But no plane crashed into WTC 7. How did the molten metal get there?

For starters, I'd think most if not all of the jet fuel exploded on impact. Isn't that what usually happens when a plane (or car for that matter) crashes?

(to be continued)

 

scott3x "pulls" something all the time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So your impression is that there must be a bomb? Why would they have planted one there? To what end? "Hey, this machine looks important...let's blow it up?" Where was it in relation to the columns?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is complete and utter supposition.

Proof please.

Which you prefer to think is the American's fault, because the alternative is unacceptable to you.

He probably said "Plane yes, fire and plane no."

Was there any molten metal in WTC 7 at all? Please provide a link.

 

Oh, and a final thing to put the nails in the coffin of the "molten conspiracy":

Thermite burns out very quickly. It doesn't smoulder for weeks and weeks.

 

Oh, what the heck. How about this then?

So there's the "kiln theory" for Troofers to deal with now also.

 

Firstly how would people on the bottom floors know that the explosion was before the plane hit? Were they watching the plane? The ones in the basement weren't.

When the plane hit there was an initial bang from the collision and then a subsequent explosion. It is possible that there were two bangs from the first collision as the sound travels faster down the steel than it does through air. CTers desperate to shoehorn evidence to fit their beliefs will only interpret more than one bang as evidence as bombs.

Once again, the collapse started up the top at the point of impact, so if bombs went off they had no effect on the lower levels.

http://www.911myths.com/html/mike_pecoraro.html

What? Where was all the air then?

A couple of hundred people dived to their deaths on 911. They hung out the windows as long as they could and then they dived so they wouldn't burn to death. Perhaps you should rethink that comment about the paltry 1 or 2 weak fires.

They have been speaking up though haven't they?

Something would have come out by now. In fact no one at all has come forward to give details of the conspiracy seven years later which is amazing considering that thousands of people must have been involved. Not one has come forward.

Scott, Steel with lose it's strength in a fire while concrete will not. That is why the Madrid tower held even though the steel supports fell.

It's pretty funny that CTers bring this up all the time but it only reinforces the official story.

What does molten metal have to do with bombs? A bomb detonates in a second and wouldn't explain fires later on.

Source for molten metal at WTC7? There were hot spots for many weeks after the collapse and remember glowing metal is not molten metal.

But this is how 911 discussions go. When the WTC 1 and 2 stuff gets silly we move to WTC7...

Cars don't carry 10, 000 gallons.

From NIST

"Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half of the jet fuel remained in the building, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fuel shot up and down the elevator shafts, blowing out doors and walls on other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors."

The elevator shafts were the point of least resistance, a conduit for the fuel to funnel down.

 

Hmm, good point.

 

Well, as far as I and others are concerned, they failed when it came to the bit about not looking like explosives were going off. But it takes someone who knows what to look for. Same thing, I believe, for the sounds made when the buildings were collapsing. I have already explained how the explosives were probably placed in another post, but will be happy to do so again if you missed it.

It had to be done in such a way that the real culprits could get away with it. I imagine they felt that planes were the best way for this to happen.

Because a smaller event would probably not have triggered the amount of anger needed to wage war in 2 countries and curtail american freedoms, supposedly to get these types of terrorists.

There's lots of evidence that the buildings couldn't have fallen based on the pancake theory. If you want, I can post it again..

I would argue that the evidence for a demolition is much stronger then evidence for anything else.

What if the people who placed the bombs were from a security firm in charge of installing some upgrades and doing a few drills a few weeks before the event? You see, it would have taken time to do all of this and it's much harder to sneak into a building and do this much work then it is to simply hijack a few planes. Especially if even the security at the airport and one of the airlines used is apparently on your side (I read some info on this but I don't know where I read it from at present).

Sure. But I don't think this theory is absurd or needlessly complex, but rather the theory that best fits the evidence.

Weakened by the steel? You mean by the alleged 'inferno', don't you? Anyway, I'm not sure who decided the columns would stick out, it's something that was said on Zeitgeist. Anyway, I can give you some quotes from some notables. Again, from Zeitgeist:
************************************************************
Les Robertson, WTC Structural Engineer:
"We designed the buildings to take the impact of the boeing 707, ah, hitting the building at any location."

Frank A. Demartini, Manager, WTC Construction:
"The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners."

Interviewer questioning Aaron Swirsky, WTC Architect:
"Interviewer: So you're saying that the plane was actually designed to cope with a hole like that?
Mr. Swirsky: Yeah, it was..."
************************************************************

No, it's not, because the people who built the towers -know- that they fell down on 9/11 and yet they still claimed this. If they had felt that the buildings would have pancaked after a while, they would have said so. Clearly, they believe that the official explanation is absurd.

Let's take a look at the real story. From "The Terror Conspiracy", page 62-63:
*******************************************
The public might know more of what really happened to the WTC if the New York Police Department and New York Fire Department had been allowed to do their jobs. But, as with the JFK assassination, their work was taken from them by federal officials, who immediately closed doors and shut out the public from their consultations. People were even arrested for taking photographs of Ground Zero.

The FBi took charge of the criminal investigation while the little-understood Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) took responsibility for determining what happened to cause the collapse of the twin towers. FEMA seemed determined to haul away the evidence, even before a full and impartial investigation could be made. Such premature destruction of evidence was called into question by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old firemen's publication Fire Engineering in its January 2002 issue.

"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap.", wrote Manning. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car."

Challenging the theory that the twin towers collapsed as a result of crashed airplanes and fires, Manning added, "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, like far afield of full disclosure.

"Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by the ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a 'tourist trip'- no one's checking the evidence for anything.

"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately", Manning declared.
***********************************

(further response to be continued)

 

Actually all they said was "the towers should have withstood multiple hits from airliners". I don't recall them saying the towers wouldn't "pancake" necessarily. And what else would they say about multiple hits? "Oh, hell, no. No, they shouldn't really have stood up to a light breeze. Don't know what we were on about, building them like that. We really ought to be sued for eleventy billion dollars and burned in effigy."

See above points about the complete dearth of engineering failures in the entirety of human history.