Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Tony Szamboti]

it's your hypothesis, not mine. you tell me.

Of course an explosive placed on the side of a column applies a force on the column and will drive it away from the force. This would cause high shear stress in the welds, which were less than half as strong in shear as the actual parent material of the column. The welds of the core columns were not meant to take large shear stresses.

 

[leopold]

okay. so now we have columns that wasn't cut but the welds were blasted loose right?
this caused the collapse?

i don't know man, for some reason that makes no sense.
what about the bolts and rivets? what about those?

no, the only way is to sever the girders, to completely slice them apart.
seriously tony have you ever heard of a building being demolished in the fashion in which you speak?
and to add to that what if you arrived at the pile after seeing the collapse and hearing the statement on TV, would you know what to look for?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

okay. so now we have columns that wasn't cut but the welds were blasted loose right?
this caused the collapse?

i don't know man, for some reason that makes no sense.
what about the bolts and rivets? what about those?

no, the only way is to sever the girders, to completely slice them apart.
seriously tony have you ever heard of a building being demolished in the fashion in which you speak?
and to add to that what if you arrived at the pile after seeing the collapse and hearing the statement on TV, would you know what to look for?

Don't talk about whether or not you ever heard of it being done. Tell me why you don't think it can happen. What bolts and rivets are you talking about? The columns were joined by welds. If you mean the beams bolted to the columns they wouldn't come into play as the welds were usually about three feet above the adjoining beams.

All that would have to happen is for the column to be moved about one inch sideways and the weld would shear and the column becomes unstable. This would have been done to columns below the initial collapse, which was probably initiated with incendiaries. The debris falling from above would cause the higly unstabilized column to fall.

It isn't hard to imagine at all and it does fit with the evidence in the photo debris and it is highly plausible. It is not the same thing as starting the collapse from scratch. That was most probably done with incendiaries.

Ask yourself why the NIST got less than 0.5% of the steel from the towers to analyze.

In my opinion most people would have had no idea what to look for and you are just guessing that they would somehow. What would you be looking for?

 

[leopold]

Don't talk about whether or not you ever heard of it being done. Tell me why you don't think it can happen.

pretty hard to prove a negative tony.

In my opinion most people would have had no idea what to look for and you are just guessing that they would somehow. What would you be looking for?

you are doing a splendid job of describing it now.
you apparently know how it happened, and without any forensic testing.
so you saying people wouldn't know what to look for and forensic testing is required has just been disproved tony.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

pretty hard to prove a negative tony.

you are doing a splendid job of describing it now.
you apparently know how it happened, and without any forensic testing.
so you saying people wouldn't know what to look for and forensic testing is required has just been disproved tony.

That isn't proving a negative. I can show you it can happen. Breaking the welds would cause the lower structure to behave like a house of cards and the already initiated collapse would provide more than enough force to take down the cards.

Forensic testing would be needed for official proof. What I am saying is that based on the serious problems with explaining how those buildings came down due to natural causes (remember there is no evidence of a dynamic load) then it is appropriate to speculate how it could have been done with explosives and to look at the steel for evidence of something which would indicate something other than natural circumstances.

Why didn't the official investigations have a chance to analyze the steel?

In reality you don't care one way or the other and are just playing a little game with your no need for forensics ploy and you haven't proved a thing. What utter nonsense you are spewing. I don't have the time to play your little semantical game. Try it somewhere else.

 

[leopold]

it's no game tony. you yourself described how this happened without any forensic testing, but yet you say you wouldn't know what to look for on the pile.
do i detect some kind of nonsense here?

i still don't see how any of this disproves the 6 points i listed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

it's no game tony. you yourself described how this happened without any forensic testing, but yet you say you wouldn't know what to look for on the pile.
do i detect some kind of nonsense here?

i still don't see how any of this disproves the 6 points i listed.

I am looking at it now since reading Steven Jones paper and we have started to question the collapses since learning about WTC 7 but certainly wouldn't have on Sept. 11, 2001. However, a disciplined official investigation should have followed NFPA 921 and they would have tested for residues. That is why we have codes for investigations. It is a shame it wasn't followed.

Your silly 6 points don't prove a thing and you are a game player.

You are wasting a lot of time with your silly games and I think I have no choice but to put you on ignore.

 

[leopold]

Your silly 6 points don't prove a thing and you are a game player.

actually they do tony. they practically obliterate the bomb theory.

You are wasting a lot of time with your silly games and I think I have no choice but to put you on ignore.

no problem.
ignoring facts isn't helping you at all.
in fact i think that's what you are desperately trying to do, to downplay the points i listed but can't, so you do the next best thing and ignore them.

 

[shaman_]

Very, very little of WTC 1's debris fell on WTC 7. Go look at the FEMA report if you don't believe it.

Very little?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

WTC7 was significantly damaged by the falling debris. The testimony from the fire fighters at the scene supports this. No the damage was not enough to cause a collapse so don't think of touching that strawman. But the point was that your ‘evidence’ appears to be that there is no evidence because the government did not treat this event as they would a simple building fire! It wasn't just a building fire. Not compelling is it?

Many engineering problems are unique, but physical laws are constant and allow engineering principles to help determine cause from effect. That is why investigations are done very carefully and the physical evidence is safeguarded. The fact that it wasn't done in this case should tell you it was fraudalent.

Because the scene wasn’t treated like a human murder scene or a simple building fire therefore there was a conspiracy…?? . You have nothing do you?

However, you just don't seem capable of even considering that possibility even with overwhelming evidence of fraud staring you in the face.

What ‘overwhelming evidence’?!!

I have considered the possibility. Then I kept thinking and researching and saw how absurd it was.


At play here is a desire to believe in conspiracy theories. You don’t want to believe the official story because then your life would be less interesting. You want to believe that there are secret organisations capable of pulling of this silly, implausible conspiracy theory. To maintain this you ignore the evidence you don't like, talk with other conspiracy theorists and visit websites for communal reinforcement and keep doing those calculations until you get the results you like.

You seem to be another individual suffering from incredulity.

Because I am not gullible enough to let myself believe in such a ridiculous conspiracy?

 

[psikeyhackr]

WTC7 was significantly damaged by the falling debris. The testimony from the fire fighters at the scene supports this. No the damage was not enough to cause a collapse so don't think of touching that strawman. But the point was that your ‘evidence’ appears to be that there is no evidence because the government did not treat this event as they would a simple building fire! It wasn't just a building fire. Not compelling is it?

I have considered the possibility. Then I kept thinking and researching and saw how absurd it was.

At play here is a desire to believe in conspiracy theories. You don’t want to believe the official story because then your life would be less interesting.

Because I am not gullible enough to let myself believe in such a ridiculous conspiracy?

.
ROFLMAO

Yeah, here is the problem.

People who think they are intelligent BELIEVE they can judge this situation on the basis of PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLSHIT. And that psychological bullshit is so much more important than PHYSICS that they DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Falling debris could not make that structure come straight down that evenly. Too many supports would have to release simultaneously. You are just talking psychological bullshit to defend what you prefer to believe. Oh yeah you people have the psychological problem, not me. :crazy:

PHYSICS IS INCAPABLE OF GIVING A DAMN ABOUT PSYCHOLOGY!!!

It is not about conspiracies. It is about PHYSICS! To hell with all of this JFK and Pearl Harbor crap.

psik

 

[John99]

psikey, i dont mean to be insulting or too forward but have you ever considered that perhaps you have some sort of emotional problem?

 

[dMx9]

Ask yourself why the NIST got less than 0.5% of the steel from the towers to analyze.

Since Leo seems to be avoiding this point, I'll discuss it. I still haven't located the 6 points he keeps on about (but this forum search engine keeps spitting out the 6). The word "point" appears to show up all over the place though.

Because proper crime scene protocols were not followed, the investigation was started a month later, and Rudy, PANY, and FEMA shipped much of the evidence off to China for "recycling."

" The BPAT team deployed to the WTC site was assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers and is headed by W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E, Senior Vice President of Construction Technologies Laboratory in Skokie, Illinois. He was also the principal investigator in the FEMA study of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Office Building. On September 11th, ASCE, in partnership with a number of other professional organizations, commenced the formation of an independent team of experts to conduct a building performance assessment study at the WTC site as part of ASCE's Disaster Response Procedure. In late September, this team, the ASCE Disaster Response team, was officially appointed as the BPAT team and was funded by FEMA to assess the performance of the buildings and report its findings. The BPAT team received $600,000 in FEMA funding in addition to approximately $500,000 in ASCE in-kind contributions.

The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7–12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team's behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings.
...
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection."

That was from the 107th US Congress BTW.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021128...ommittees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm

Baosteel of China apparently got the largest contract.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a030602collapsehearing

 

[dMx9]

yes or no to post 379 tony.

Try reading Tony's post 380 again Leo. There was an answer in there, perhaps just not the one you desire. You may want to practice your reading skills a little.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2209825&postcount=380

I wonder if Leo has read the FEMA report Appendices C & D yet. They actually mention steel quite a bit in there.

WTC7 was Chapter 5 of that report.

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

 

[phoenix2634]

...I still haven't located the 6 points he keeps on about (but this forum search engine keeps spitting out the 6). The word "point" appears to show up all over the place though...

dMx9,

Here are leopolds99's 6 points.
They're back about four pages in this thread.
No search of the forum neccessary.
Follow the conversation--and back track.
Simple eh? :m:

Just as simple: Advanced Search by user name in this thread.
Brings up two pages of leopold99's posts.
And, Hey! I found two posts listing these points.
Took me about 2 minutes. Here and here.

Or, you could search by keyword (points), and user (leopold99) in this thread.
(I'm puzzled by your thought process as to why you'd search for point :bugeye: when there's 6 of them)
After skimming through the reults, it's logical to change the keyword to: facts.
So, then you search by keyword (facts) and user name (leopold99) and...
I'm able to find the same two posts previously refered to.
Sheesh...it's not that complicated.

actually tony you are wrong.
gravity pulls the ground and the brick towards each other, the earth does indeed move albeit a very,very,very,very, tiny amount.

speculation on your part tony.
how can you possibly state that the impacting aircraft had no effect?
during this entire discussion in this thread absolutely no evidence of any type of bomb was presented that could be linked with ground zero.

for the record i would like to restate the facts concerning WTC 1 and 2:
1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.

 

[psikeyhackr]

psikey, i dont mean to be insulting or too forward but have you ever considered that perhaps you have some sort of emotional problem?

.
Are you attempting to imply that there are people on this planet that do not have emotional problems? LOL

I'll tell you a little story, it is true but I can't prove it.

When I started high school I did not know how to play chess. I had only read of it mentioned in sci-fi books and seen it on television. I don't think I ever saw anyone play. So I started playing freshman year and of course some kids would not play me. I WAS NO CHALLENGE! By second semester junior year only one other kid in class would play against me. The kids that became valedictorian and salutatorian would not play. I would kick their asses. But I got straight D's in religion freshman year so naturally i could not be valedictorian. LOL I had decided I was an agnostic at 12. I thought the straight D's in religion next to my straight A's in math were hilarious.

Now I regard 9/11 as relatively simple physics problems. Even thinking about what could happen to WTC 1 & 2 without recognizing the need to know the distribution of steel and concrete is ludicrous.

There is lots of silly psychological BS going on in society. Like people not figuring out that planned obsolescence is going on in cars 40 years after the Moon landing when the SR-71 Blackbird was doing 2000 mph five years before the landing. But here we are, 40 years AFTER THE MOON LANDING and Americans can't solve Grade School Physics problems involving three skyscrapers.

If I was an alien and not stuck on this stupid planet I would find this shit totally hilarious.

Oh, I let my MENSA membership expire back in the 80s. Do you ever watch Stargate Atlantis? The characters Zelenka and McKay are hysterical. Did you ever consider that trying to live with NORMALS when you aren't one can be really aggravating? The schools take the "SMART KIDS" and put them in the same class and make them compete against each other. A lot of this is stupid competition for grades like we are supposed to get A's in crap not worth paying attention to. But haven't you ever met any compulsive over-achievers the MUST SUCCEED at stupid crap. But I do know other people who are sure that people who BELIEVE that a 200 TON airliner can level a 400,000 TON skyscraper in less than 2 hours must be mentally retarded.

So if IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS is easier for some people to BELIEVE than improbable conspiracies then that is what they claim to be LOGIC. But why would they have any problem with wanting to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the skyscrapers? Surely having the relevant facts could not possibly change anything???

psik

 

[RonWieck]

.
Are you attempting to imply that there are people on this planet that do not have emotional problems? LOL

I'll tell you a little story, it is true but I can't prove it.

When I started high school I did not know how to play chess. I had only read of it mentioned in sci-fi books and seen it on television. I don't think I ever saw anyone play. So I started playing freshman year and of course some kids would not play me. I WAS NO CHALLENGE! By second semester junior year only one other kid in class would play against me. The kids that became valedictorian and salutatorian would not play. I would kick their asses. But I got straight D's in religion freshman year so naturally i could not be valedictorian. LOL I had decided I was an agnostic at 12. I thought the straight D's in religion next to my straight A's in math were hilarious.

Now I regard 9/11 as relatively simple physics problems. Even thinking about what could happen to WTC 1 & 2 without recognizing the need to know the distribution of steel and concrete is ludicrous.

There is lots of silly psychological BS going on in society. Like people not figuring out that planned obsolescence is going on in cars 40 years after the Moon landing when the SR-71 Blackbird was doing 2000 mph five years before the landing. But here we are, 40 years AFTER THE MOON LANDING and Americans can't solve Grade School Physics problems involving three skyscrapers.

If I was an alien and not stuck on this stupid planet I would find this shit totally hilarious.

Oh, I let my MENSA membership expire back in the 80s. Do you ever watch Stargate Atlantis? The characters Zelenka and McKay are hysterical. Did you ever consider that trying to live with NORMALS when you aren't one can be really aggravating? The schools take the "SMART KIDS" and put them in the same class and make them compete against each other. A lot of this is stupid competition for grades like we are supposed to get A's in crap not worth paying attention to. But haven't you ever met any compulsive over-achievers the MUST SUCCEED at stupid crap. But I do know other people who are sure that people who BELIEVE that a 200 TON airliner can level a 400,000 TON skyscraper in less than 2 hours must be mentally retarded.

So if IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS is easier for some people to BELIEVE than improbable conspiracies then that is what they claim to be LOGIC. But why would they have any problem with wanting to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the skyscrapers? Surely having the relevant facts could not possibly change anything???

psik

Your statement that some 9/11-related issues are physics problems is partially correct. Still, it would be more accurate to describe most of them as engineering problems. The bad news for you is that you are clueless about both physics and engineering. You know even less about the demolition industry, where absolutely NO ONE swallows your snake oil about explosives in the towers.

NIST employed 200 of the agency's researchers--physicists, structural engineers, architects, fire safety experts--along with 800 outside consultants to produce its reports on the collapses of the towers. Fantasists have a silly habit of bleating about the "bad science" contained in the reports, although they are conspicuously incapable of pointing to any serious researchers anywhere in the world who agree with them. What do you know that 1,000 people with technical backgrounds and advanced degrees do not? How did you learn it?

Agenda-driven know-nothings have ranted for over seven years about "impossible" physics. Let's suppose you are sitting on a discussion panel with real demolition experts, physicists, and engineers. They assert that your fantasies are baseless nonsense. How do you show them that you are a heaven-shaking genius whose insights trump their puny science?

Tell us what the experts get wrong. More importantly, tell us why no experts from countries that dislike America notice what is obvious to a tiny group of disturbed adolescents and anti-intellectual cranks.

 

[RonWieck]

The NIST says that due to thermal expansion the beams on the east side of the building at the 13th floor pushed a girder coming from the north face to core column 79 off it's seat on column 79 and then the beams fell off the girder and caused the floors under them to collapse and further remove lateral support from column 79, finally causing it to buckle which they say then caused a progressive collapse of the whole interior (without any deformation of the exterior) and then the exterior came down on it's own with 2.25 seconds of full freefall in the overall 6.6 second fall. Bear in mind that it would take 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to hit the ground at full freefall, but the NIST says this is all consistent with their fire induced progressive collapse model.

Their story is almost as bad as Leopold's when he was confused about WTC 7 being built over a hole in the ground with long cantilever beams spanning the hole causing the collapse due to some form of fire weakening. At least Leopold finally admitted he didn't know. Maybe the NIST will someday.

I really have to stop discussing this as the controlled demolition of these three buildings is so obvious that one has to be getting paid to say any different, once they have looked closely at it.

You have agreed to debate Mackey. Will you appear in the studio or do you prefer using a web cam?

 

[dMx9]

Hey thank you phoenix- that is helpful. My point was that wouldn't be easier to actually refer back to John's post #308 or provide a hyperlink (as you did) rather than keep talking about them?

Originally Posted by leopold99
actually tony you are wrong.
gravity pulls the ground and the brick towards each other, the earth does indeed move albeit a very,very,very,very, tiny amount.

speculation on your part tony.
how can you possibly state that the impacting aircraft had no effect?
during this entire discussion in this thread absolutely no evidence of any type of bomb was presented that could be linked with ground zero.

for the record i would like to restate the facts concerning WTC 1 and 2:
1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.

Regarding #2 & #3- About these "facts" though- as you can see from my post #412 above, the BPAT didn't get there until October 2001, when much of the evidence had already been removed. What did that NSF volunteer say again?

Regarding #1- yeah we heard all kinds of wild speculations from the news agencies in the time frame immediately after the attacks- there really weren't too many facts known early on, as there hadn't been any investigation, and most of the evidence was "recycled."

Regarding #4- take a look at the first 2 photos in this page (of the Brooklyn Bridge police barricaded and the Humvee with the barricades and National Guardsmen):

http://www.rememberseptember11.us/

Regarding #5- FEMA actually is not a civilian agency. "Consequently they warranted a serious investigation of unprecedented scale. No such investigation occurred. Instead, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) took control of Ground Zero in Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the attack and assured that no real investigation could be conducted. "

http://911review.com/coverup/fema_wtc.html

Regarding #6- the supporting evidence of this is where? Did anyone specifically look for explosive devices or residues while all that steel was being "recycled" and before an investigative body even existed (FEMA's BPAT in this case)?

I have noticed that a few persons will make a claim, and repeatedly refer to it as "fact" without supporting references. That is fairly poor "research" IMHO.

Thank you again for quoting those 6 assertions and the links though.

 

[leopold]

More importantly, tell us why no experts from countries that dislike America notice what is obvious to a tiny group of disturbed adolescents and anti-intellectual cranks.

a fine point indeed.

 

[leopold]

Hey thank you phoenix- that is helpful. My point was that wouldn't be easier to actually refer back to John's post #308 or provide a hyperlink (as you did) rather than keep talking about them?

take note, i will not be responding to any more of your bull . . . er posts.

Regarding #2 & #3- About these "facts" though- as you can see from my post #412 above, the BPAT didn't get there until October 2001, when much of the evidence had already been removed. What did that NSF volunteer say again?

nothing you stated here disproves facts 2 and 3.

Regarding #1- yeah we heard all kinds of wild speculations from the news agencies in the time frame immediately after the attacks- there really weren't too many facts known early on, as there hadn't been any investigation, and most of the evidence was "recycled."

nothing you stated here disproves fact 1.

Regarding #4- take a look at the first 2 photos in this page (of the Brooklyn Bridge police barricaded and the Humvee with the barricades and National Guardsmen):

http://www.rememberseptember11.us/

yes, the caption under photo one says they are pictures taken one week after 9/11.
does not disprove fact 4.

Regarding #5- FEMA actually is not a civilian agency. "Consequently they warranted a serious investigation of unprecedented scale. No such investigation occurred. Instead, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) took control of Ground Zero in Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the attack and assured that no real investigation could be conducted. "
http://911review.com/coverup/fema_wtc.html

a link with the word coverup in it?
doesn't that seem biased?
but to oblige you:
GREENSBORO – Following the collapse of the Twin Towers and five other buildings in the World Trade Center, the largest and costliest demolition-and-cleanup project in the nation's history was directed by an inner circle of just a half-dozen men.
http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2002/09/09/focus5.html
your attempt to disprove fact 5 fails.

Regarding #6- the supporting evidence of this is where? Did anyone specifically look for explosive devices or residues while all that steel was being "recycled" and before an investigative body even existed (FEMA's BPAT in this case)?

does nothing to disprove fact 6.

Thank you again for quoting those 6 assertions and the links though.

your welcome.
nice attempt to disprove the facts i've listed