What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- quakerorts, on 08/21/2008, -41/+279They couldn't find a tape of an explosion sound?! They should have called me, or simply checked YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3byu5jYKcio- spynes, on 08/21/2008, -55/+8the new sandvich gives the heavy gas, which can explain the large explosion heard. Move along.
- Cryptocracy, on 08/21/2008, -4/+21what've you been eating?
- eyefork2, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4As a TF2 player I lol'd.
- DavidBGie, on 08/22/2008, -49/+15"a large group of professional architects and engineers, who want to know what the agency is covering up"
aka
"A bunch of bored geeks sitting behind their computers in their mother's basement."
Conspiracy wackos suck. - caferrell, on 08/22/2008, -5/+33David why didn't the same thing occur at the Avianca building fire in Bogotá in 1973?
http://www.leechvideo.com/video/view397035.html
It also burned for hours without water, but it didn't produce any molten metal and didn't fall straight down into a pile.
It took the government 7 years to produce this study. Have you ever seen it take seven years for the insurance compies and the fire inspectors to determine the cause of a fire and the cause of a collapse of a structure. The entire investigation was conducted in secret and none of the raw data was released, only the conclusions. No mention was made of the tons of molten metal.
Like many Americans you trust your governemnt to tell you the truth, but don't you accept that war with Iraq was on the agenda from the first week of the Bush Presidency? Don't you accept that intelligence was changed and falsified to get us into war.
Turn off the TV, and think about how many different and truly implausable things we are expected to believe. Hey, one or two implausable things can happen, but series of dozens of highly unlikely occurrences that all lead us into the war that the PNAC had stated in 1998 was the goal of the administrations foreign policy makers......
It is good to be cynical buddy - norman619, on 08/22/2008, -2/+3"the new sandvich gives the heavy gas"
Subway's new explosive sandvich eh? - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -7/+10caferrell, the WTC didn't produce any molten metal either. And maybe the fire in Bogota didn't have any other large buildings falling into it. And note they were actually fighting that fire...
Also, did the building in Bogota have long span structures like WTC 7? The comparisons are not apt. - honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -5/+14@tkstock
Research indicates that even if a steel-framed building were subjected to an impossible superfire, hundreds of degrees hotter and far more extensive then any fire ever observed in a real building, it would still not collapse. Appendix A of The World Trade Center Building Performance Study contains the following:
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments). http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html
In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns never exceed 500º C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360ºC.
Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; http://www.wtc7.net/cache/sgh_meridian.htm
The 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank. ...
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer than on 9/11 (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flammable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179) - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -5/+8honestjoe,
Two big differences between all the buildings you've mentioned and WTC 7:
1) WTC 7 had a long-span floor system
2) WTC 7 had another building fall into it
Aside from these additional variables, there's no good photographic or video evidence from the side of the building that was hit - they really don't know how much damage there was on that side. And that was the side that collapsed first - you can see the penthouse structures collapse before the rest of the building. - Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -6/+8On 9/11 the sprinkler systems in WTC7 were not working. The collapse of the towers damaged the water mains and the sprinkle system in WTC7. It's in the report. Try reading it sometime.
http://winterpatriot.pbwiki.com/f/ seffen_simple_analysis.pdf - honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -4/+4@tkstock
NIST is now agreeing FEMA claiming that any damage from the collapse of WTC was minimal and insignificant. They have reversed their position because it would make their new theory of a progressive, symmetrical and total collapse imposable for it would have been asymmetrical. As a matter of fact look at their new diagrams showing both structural and fire damage as they chart the progressive collapse, notice how they don't show damage on the south side like they used to? Thats because any asymmetrical damage to WTC 7 would cause an asymmetrical collapse.
@Herkimer56
You know damn well that I was talking about the fire that burned for less than an hour in WTC 2 after it had previously survived a much longer and much hotter fire in 1975 with "NO" structural damage. I was using it as a comparison to WTC 7 and showing how not one but ALL THREE steel framed highrise buildings had for the first time in history completely collapsed in on them selves do to FIRE.
And before you say the buildings were not designed for the impact of a jet.
The structural analysis carried out by the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings.
This report had done an analysis of an impact and fires resulting from the collision of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy (because of the faster speed) than on 9/11, despite the slightly smaller size and it was calculated with a maximum load that was more weight than on 9/11 and carrying more fuel than on 9/11. Also This study unlike NIST’s had done a thermodynamic analysis and this study was done with the effect on NON isulated steel in a building with NO sprinkler system and No fire proofing material filling gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through and it was calculated with office furniture that was highly flamable!
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.
--City in the Sky, p 131 (They felt confident that it could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!)
“our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
--City in the Sky
Before you say that the WTC buildings came down because both were hit at optimal locations.
Thats bulls**t there would have been more weight and stress if they hit at the bottom of the WTC buildings but even then the buildings would not collapse.
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers’ calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and th tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.(AND THAT WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING!)
--City in the Sky, p 133
NIST states a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.
The critical load ratio was well over 10.0, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
Before you say the jets on 9/11 were nearly fully fueled.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
fuel capacity for a Boeing 767-200 is 23,980 gallons WICH IT DID NOT HAVE!
But the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707-340 with 23,000 gallons of fuel! = 129,980,000 MJ of energy!
Before you say the jets on 9/11 hit at top speed.
Not one report says they hit at top speed wich would have been 530 mph! NIST gave 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft impacting the tower. Which by the way is not enough for the required 6,000 MJ needed to remove the insulation and that is from NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Appendix C, and MIT who also came up with the 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation!
The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with MORE kinetic energy because of the faster speed alone. I wont even go into weight. Using the same math for speed and not adding the aditional weight that was originaly caculated for a fully loaded 707.
The kinetic energy provided by the 707 traveling at 600 miles per hour and impacting the tower is 3,800 MJ of energy! AND THAT IS WITHOUT THE EXTRA WEIGHT!
Before you say that the WTC were left with the result being significant structural damage.
The WTC buildings could withstand not just one but multiple jet impacts!
Even NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
Before you say it was because of the loss of likely already patchy fireproofing
New insulation is NOT “patchy”! There was extra fireproofing that was put on and the total 2.5” in of fireproofing was NOT “patchy”!
..."thermal protection was upgraded...in WTC 1, floors 92-100, and 102...and WTC 2, floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92, 96 and 97.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p20, para1)
“The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1-1/2” spray-on fireproofing.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para1)
“The overall average thickness determined from the 256 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in. with a standard deviation of 0.6 in. Thus, the average SFRM thickness on the upgraded upper floors appears to be greater than that estimated from photographs taken on the upgraded lower floor.” (NCSTAR 1-6 p25, para3)
Before you say the WTC buildings came down because of large multi-floor fires
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours) and MUCH hotter! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT which means the fire attained at least 1377 F. (747 C)
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Before you say it was because the 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt (the weakest link) at the end of thr trusses had sheared.
First NIST said;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses were so weak that they were the first thing that failed (from the heat of the fire) causing the entire and still intact floor to fall then initiating the (pancake theory) total collapse of the buildings because they claimed the floors (trusses) were needed to hold the building together (omitting the cross-trusses) so when they were removed the entire building came down as the floors pancaked on each other.
But NIST threw out the pancake theory because it was proven that they were omitting the cross-trusses and therefore the building would still be there because the 5/8"in bolt that held the floor trusses were designed solely for that... to hold up the floors..... not to handle any of the structural issues of the exterior columns or the interior core columns.... there were other structural members built into the framework to handle those stresses..... there were additional beams joining the exterior to the core where needed.
Also the first 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses!
You could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculation. The building would still be there.
note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses.
So NIST needed a way to pull the building down without explosives. That is why they came up with this even more absurd theory than the last one.
You will see that NIST's new theory fails in 4 ways just because of the bolts alone!
Now NIST's new theory says;
That the 5/8"in bolt at each end of the trusses are so strong that the supposedly sagging floors are pulling the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
But NIST says;
The shear strength of the bolts controlled the truss seat horizontal tension capacity. (NCSTAR 1-6 p79 para1)
Well that makes sense that the amout of pull cannot be greater than the breaking point of the bolt.
But then we have a situation were the temperature alone can cause the bolts to snap/shear.
At lower elevated temperatures (approximately 100C to 400C), the floor thermally expanded and displaced the exterior columns outward by a few inches. (NCSTAR 1-6 p225 para2)
The exterior seat angles and interior stiffened seat had 1-3/4 in. slotted holes, this expansion likely would have sheared the exterior bolts (if not the interior bolts) (NCSTAR 1-6 p69
Ok so the fire cant be less than 400C or the bolts will snap to put it simply.
But the fire cannot be to hot or the bolts will snap.
The truss seat bolts sheared off at 566C. (NCSTAR 1-6 p87 para6-8)
Ok so the fire cant be any higher more that 565C or they will snap to put it simply.
So the temperature of the fire stayed between 400C and 566C. Ok it could happen but…
How is the weakest link, the (1) 5/8” ASTM A325 bolt suppose to be strong enough to:
#1 manage to resist bending and warping from this same high heat that caused the floors to warp and sag enough to pull the columns in?
#2 Not give before the much stronger and thicker perimeter columns made out of 1,000,000 PSI super-strong steel does?
Well guess what NIST admitts the bolts are not strong enough to pull the perimeter columns in causing them to buckle and simultaniously and symmetrically fail then initiating the total collapse of the buildings.
NIST’s table 4-4 (NCSTAR 1-6 p75) shows that the interior seat capacity against horizontal tensile force is only 9 kips. (So does figure 4-16 NCSTAR 1-6 p78)
Column buckling was found to occur when an inward lateral load (pull-in) of approximately 12 kips was applied to three adjacent floor levels. (NCSTAR 1-6 p xlix para1)
Column instability (buckling) was reached with a transverse load of 12.6 kips per column. (NCSTAR 1-6 p115 para2)
Thus, we are 3 kips to 3.6 kips away from a working mode of failure. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -3/+6Nice long cut and paste. Random half-truths do not make a case. Since your post is so long, I will debunk a random couple (I don't have time to do more):
1) You state a critical load of 10 meaning 9/10th's of the support could be severed without collapse. That assumes a uniformly distributed floor load. That value decreases dramatically with variances in uniformity.
2) You quote NIST: “None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” but you leave out the second half of the paragraph where it explains those collected samples were from zones where that level of heating was predicted. It actually CONFIRMED their thermal modeling.
A couple of random things, easily debunked without much effort, I may try to do the rest later, but since you don't provide links it's hard to find the sources outright. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -4/+4My statement was unclear, so here's clarification: "those collected samples were from zones where that level of heating was NOT predicted." (they expected these pieces of steel to have the level of heating they encountered)
- card51short, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4"1) WTC 7 had a long-span floor system
2) WTC 7 had another building fall into it"
1) Explain how this matters.
2) So did buildings 4, 5 and 6 (which were closer to the towers). All had to be pulled with controlled demolition after.
Also, NIST says "fire" brought the structure down...not debris from the towers. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -4/+31) "In response to public demand for safer structures and the commercial drive for robust
structural fire design post 9-11, Arup and The University of Edinburgh have carried out a
number of analyses of the behaviour of long span floor systems including composite cellular
beams and composite truss floors similar to the WTC 1 & 2 buildings. The research has
considered single and multi-storey fires.
For scenarios where fires have been assumed to act over several storeys simultaneously this
research is beginning to identify potential global progressive collapse mechanisms in the
different long-span floor systems studied. Where possible, failure mechanisms are being
validated against evidence from the real fires of WTC 1, 2 and 7."
http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/WS_2005-11/Paper/La ...
2) 4,5 and 6 were all shorter buildings - less load on the lower levels.
So NIST is suddenly right when it goes against what I say, but wrong when it goes against what you say? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
- thaddeuspresley, on 08/22/2008, -49/+22Wow a loud noise that's all the proof we need.
- d03boy, on 08/22/2008, -38/+8That video was probably enhanced with Adobe Soundshop 2.0 (C)
- sq2shooter, on 08/22/2008, -29/+48You mean concrete and steel shouldn't make a loud noise when it fails with the weight of a building bearing down on it. Oh okay.
- RationalXubrnce, on 08/22/2008, -18/+30 No it should. But it shouldn't make a large cracking explosion sound a few seconds before the building falls. You should try watching the video quakerorts posted.
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -14/+16Rational, why don't you show me where the timing of that video coincides with the collapse of WTC7. You blindly say a few seconds before the building falls with no supporting evidence...
- identifiedlogo, on 08/22/2008, -11/+18The cracking sound is not going to match the collapse, you hear the cracking which means the columns are cut then the bnuilding slowly readjusts then you see the collapse, The explosives cut the metals in V shapes, so they shift, like the building trying to walk, those few inches are essential if you want to bring the building down in its own footprint....which it did....Perfectly Engineered demolition....
- shig, on 08/22/2008, -3/+21Technically speaking, the weight of buildings are always "bearing down on it." That's what makes them buildings. If they just floated in the sky they would be called dirigibles.
Also, as buildings collapse they make a rumbling and more of a *whoosh* sound. They generally don't make a sound like the world cracked in half from a thunderbolt thrown from Mt Olympus. - bluezinc, on 08/22/2008, -13/+5@shig
Yes, but those buildings are not usually sat next to one of the worlds largest skyscrapers that has just caught fire and exploded. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -8/+8identifiedlogo, show me the timing of the video, period. You can't say if it occurred within an HOUR of the collapse. You're already trying to justify why the timing of the video might not match the collapse of the building. The explosion in explosive demolitions precedes the collapse by only a few seconds.
Keep grasping at straws though. - andrewtheart, on 08/22/2008, -2/+4I recall watching a video in which several demolition experts said that the collapse of the building - from the sound(s) it made to the very way it fell - was consistent with an implosion.
Here's a good example of a long interview with a French demolition expert -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -5/+6The fact that the video shows the sun fairly high in the sky (official sunset was at 7:13pm on that day) leads me to believe the video is earlier in the day. The shadow under the phone booth is roughly 45 degrees, which would put the time closer to 3pm at the latest. The collapse occurred at 5:20pm, less than two hours before sunset. Given that NYC is at 40 degrees north latitude, at noon on September 11 the sun would be at it's highest point and would still be only 51.8 degrees above the horizon. At 5:20pm, the sun would be 20 degrees above the horizon, which would be below the tops of most of the surrounding buildings.
I think it's safe to say the video does NOT correlate to the collapse of WTC 7, therefore is meaningless. - sq2shooter, on 08/22/2008, -2/+8Rational- "But it shouldn't make a large cracking explosion sound a few seconds before the building falls."
Uh no. That is exactly what I would expect to hear right before the building falls. The loud sound of a building undergoing a complete structural failure right before it falls. Do you people actually think this stuff out or are you so blinded by neocon rage, you have lost your ability to think rationally? - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5andrewheart, of course it was an implosion! When the internal columns failed, the building fell on itself. The only thing the truthers question is what caused the columns to fail. What it comes down to is that there is significant evidence to explain the collapse scientifically, but there is enough uncertainty to allow conspiracy theorists to entertain their theories. I guess it's fun.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 08/22/2008, -49/+36Conspiracy theorists have the craziest logic! Anytime a single thing can't be proven 100% it apparently leaves room for a massive government conspiracy to attack it's own people.
No we don't know what exploded in that video. No we don't know what caused building 7 to collapse. perhaps it came from the thousands of tons of concrete and metal falling from the sky from a near by building that happened to be collapsing from other complications.
This report gives full information on the radius of damage caused by the collapse of the wtc
http://www.rms.com/publications/wtc.pdf
Building 7 was only 355 feet from the wtc. This puts building 7 well within reach of all forms of damage caused by the collapse of the WTC. Including massive chunks of concrete and steel, airborne debris traveling upwards of 50 mph and even the massive pressure wave that was caused by the sudden expelling of air from the wtc interior as the buildings collapsed. This pressure wave was undoubtedly strong enough to blow out the windows of near by buildings and probably strong enough to cause considerable damage to the infrastructure to building 7.
The collapse of building 7 is far from being unexplained. As a matter of fact it would have been unexplainable if the building survived without damage.- nycmac247, on 08/22/2008, -22/+14" massive government conspiracy"
-- would probably only take 3-5 people ... just the correct ones - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -11/+23It would have taken more than 3 to 5 people. There were 20 on the planes, right? Do you think Bush planted the thermite himself, or did Dick Cheney do it? Or maybe Rumsfeild did it while he was in NYC on vacation.
- RationalXubrnce, on 08/22/2008, -9/+11
Far from being unexplained, except you didn't explain it and neither has anyone else.
I can accept if falling. I have a hard time with all of the interconnected steel beams letting go, there was no part of intact structure left. This is unlike every catastrophe of a steel skeleton building ever. What your theory on why the whole integrated steel matrix of beams dis-integrated? - TheTaoOfBill, on 08/22/2008, -11/+11I side with the NIST report that was released today. 7 hours of uncontrolled fires ignited by the wtc caused a weakening in column 13 of the building which lead to a chain event of structural failures until eventually the entire building collapsed.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_q ... - yomamaphat, on 08/22/2008, -13/+9Thanks for solving everything for me. Your short explanation is not crazy at all!
50 mph is similar to the massive pressure wave (of diarrhea) I experienced in my pants when I saw your mother. - identifiedlogo, on 08/22/2008, -6/+6you have the right to remain ignorrant, but know that its not cute or funny to act stupid just because you are afraid to see the truth...
- bluezinc, on 08/22/2008, -6/+10@identifiedlogo
You just did what has now become a staple of the troofer movement. When someone disagrees or simply doesn't buy your theory, you call them stupid, ignorant, and then sarcastically tell them to keep their head in the sand.
This is why everyone hates you guys. You could be presenting the absolute truth, but nobody will listen to you if you act like spoiled brats when you FAIL to make your case to someone.
Next you're going to start telling me about how they sacrifice children in Bohemian Grove and then tell me to read a book you like by phrasing it like a douche, ex "I'd like to recommend some reading material for you. It's called, 'The Revolution: Ron Paul's Manifesto'. It'll teach you about how everything works so you won't be so ignorant next time."
Grow the ***** up. - honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -5/+6@TheTaoOfBill
You must find it difficult... You who have taken authority as the truth, Rather than truth as the authority.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were closer to the Twin Towers as well as severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, yet still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
Building 3 had 22 stories above grade and 6 stories below grade (labeled B1 through B6.) The roof parapet line was approximately 242 feet above West Street.
WTC 3 was subjected to two loading events. The first event involved the collapse of WTC 2, which stood immediately east of WTC 3. Due to its proximity to WTC 2, substantial amounts of debris fell directly on the roof of WTC 3.
An FDNY fire company was in the building during the collapses of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 and survived. The firefighters were near the top of the building in the process of making sure that there were no civilians present in the building, when the south tower collapsed. Firefighter Heinz Kothe is quoted as saying, "We had no idea what had happened. It just rocked the building. It blew the door to the stairwell open, and it blew the guys up near the door halfway down a flight of stairs. I got knocked down to the landing. The building shook like buildings just don't shake." Subsequently, the firefighters were in the lower portion of the southwest corner of the building when the north tower collapsed (Court 2001).
The Chief Engineer of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereafter referred to as the Port Authority), Frank Lombardi, was in the lobby of WTC 3 with other Port Authority executives during the collapse of WTC 2. They survived the collapse and were eventually able to leave the building (Rubin and Tuchman 2001).
WTC 3 was subjected to extraordinary loading from the impact and weight of debris from the two adjacent 110-story towers. It is noteworthy that the building resisted both horizontal and vertical progressive collapse when subjected to debris from WTC 2. The overloaded portions were able to break away from the rest of the structure without pulling it down, and the remaining structural system was able to remain stable and support the debris load. The structure was even capable of protecting occupants on lower floors after the collapse of WTC 1.
WTC 6 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. There is video were you can here the demolition guy say we are about to pull building 6. He then radios pull it and then you see it collapse. - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/22/2008, -3/+6You mean this WTC 3?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC1.jpg
Photo of World Trade Center 3 with remains of WTC1 (left background) and WTC2 (right foreground) visible. - Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -4/+6"Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were closer to the Twin Towers as well as severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, yet still remained standing."
WTC 3 - 6 were nothing more than hollowed out shells or piles of debris after the collapse of the towers. In short, they were destroyed by the collapse. WTC7 survived the collapse, burned extensively for several hours and then collapsed.
"There were no reports of multiple explosions."
The sound of an explosion does not necessarily indiacte the presence of explosives. Do you have a point?
"The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts."
Molten metal is not a byproduct of explosives. Explosives do generate tremendous heat for a fraction of a second but that heat quickly dissipates. Any molten metal would have been caused by the heat of the underground fires which continued to burn for days after the attack.
"They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more."
You don't know that they didn't produce dust clouds as they were crushed in the collapse of the towers. Any dust they created would have simply combined with the dust from the towers. They propelled no heavy beams because they didn't produce the amount of kinetic energy that the towers did and even if they could have the buildings were crushed under the weight of falling debris. Go swat a fly with a tennis shoe. Are you surprised that it's wings didn't go shooting across the room?
honestjoe may be, in fact, a joe but he is far from honest. - honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -3/+2I mean this WTC 3 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wt ...
It doesn't fit with NIST theory regarding WTC 7 does it? - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3honestjoe, what part doesn't fit? WTC 3 was practically destroyed by the collapse (except for the bottom 3 floors or so) looking at the pictures you provided. It has little to do with #7.
- Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -2/+4Do you mean the partially collapsed building showing no evidence of fire? What does that have to do with NIST's research on WTC7?
- nycmac247, on 08/22/2008, -22/+14" massive government conspiracy"
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -28/+19Now correlate the timing of that explosive sound with the collapse of WTC 7 and you might have something, otherwise you're an idiot.
- thcobbs, on 08/22/2008, -11/+29"Metal expanding due to heat -- aka "thermal expansion""
Waaaaaaaaaaait.... You mean to tell me that a solid metal EXPANDS due to heat?
I'm SHOCKED!- Shaggy3, on 08/22/2008, -3/+10Quite a phenomenon.
- thcobbs, on 08/22/2008, -21/+16That "explosion" is such BS, its not even funny
- seiga, on 08/22/2008, -13/+18I have to think that most people who play backseat scientist/engineer have never really done anything in the field. It would only take one or two moderately difficult college classes for someone to realize that what they think they are seeing or hearing could be far from what is actually occurring.
I'm not saying academia is the categorical pinnacle of truth, but the track record in engineering, science, and math is pretty goddamned solid. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean it in a big way.- honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -6/+21@seiga
Over 520 Architectural and Engineering professionals question the NIST report!
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
And over 270 Professors http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
And over 140 Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report! http://patriotsquestion911.com/
And Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice http://stj911.org/index.html
And Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
And Group of scientists, engineers and other professionals http://physics911.net/
I could go on and on but I think the point has already been made that the movement has been snowballing with more and more big names in government, media, science, law, engineering, and etc, joining everyday.
Throughout history it has always been the intellectuals who have exposed the frauds and injustice done by governments (of all kinds) to the common man and knowing this Joseph Goebbels said "...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, 'and this will always be the man in the street.' Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology... Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals."
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
I ask you seiga to please look critically into the events of 9/11 and not to simply appeal to authority.
The maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to cause the building to collapse, much less a symmetrical and total collapse on to itself. As pointed out by Eagar and Musso who said:
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500C to 650C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire." Eagar and Musso, 2001;
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel! NIST said "The fires in WTC 7 lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” - jamdogg, on 08/22/2008, -8/+21Scientists, architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, pilots etc: "we do not have all the facts about the 9/11 events and the official story contains glaring inconsistencies."
Rednecks, hillbillies, trailer trash, blindly loyal neocons etc: "we saw what happened on TV news, some Arabian psychos flew planes into the buildings, Bin Laden payed em to do it, we need to go over there an fight the terr'ism!" - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -15/+17Truthers: "We're not going to believe the official story until the official story changes to what we believe."
The fact is there would have to be too many people involved to pull something like this off. Too many people who wouldn't question why they were putting thermite on the support columns of three World Trade Center buildings? The government, who can't get a truckload of supplies to New Orleans without routing it through Cheyenne, WY can now suddenly coordinate a precision collapse with 20 terrorists who have marginal flight training to fly planes into exact locations within the WTC buildings.
Yeah, right. - darkstar949, on 08/22/2008, -3/+11@tkstock - Yet they do a good job of keeping people from poking around Area 51, getting their hands on nuclear launch codes, and knowing about the F-117 and B-2 before they were officially announced to the public. Remember, just because some parts of the government are incompetent doesn't mean that everyone associated with the government is incompetent.
Of course, this doesn't mean that the government was even remote associated with 9/11 either - at the end of the day I doubt that everyone's questions about it will have satisfactory answers. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -5/+9Let's assume for the moment that the whole thing was an inside job. Are there any demolitions experts here that can comment on how easy it would be to create a demolition of WTC 1 and 2 such that a large section of it would fall away and hit WTC 7? I know a lot of you inexperienced truthers would want to comment on this, but only a true demolitions expert could understand how difficult it would be to demolish a building the size of the WTC and expect a large portion of it to hit WTC 7. Not only that, the demolition would have to be performed using thermite - a very unconventional method of building demolition. Plus, it would have to be planned and carried out without the occupants of the building knowing about it. Plus, it would have to be coordinated with 20 terrorists with marginal flight training.
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it in the least. - andrewtheart, on 08/22/2008, -2/+4Watch this series of interviews, which is *somewhat* related to your question -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I - Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -10/+12http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Most of whom have exactly zero experience with high-rise buildings or forensic engineering. They even list a man who died on 9/11 as a member.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
The five most recent members: Gianni Vattimo - Professor of Philosophy; Fr. Daniel Berrigan, SJ - Poet in Residence; Donald W. Kyhos, PhD - Professor Emeritus, Plant Biology; Ralph W. Hood, Jr., PhD - Professor of Psychology; Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, PhD - Lecturer, Higher Education Group. Now there's a group of people with absolutely zero background or education that qualifies them to give an expert opinion on the events of 9/11.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
A group of retired people who have no experience with high-rise engineering. Most of them are just people who have personal issues with Bush.
http://stj911.org/index.html
A group started by Steven Jones who lost his job as a professor for lying in and about his work researching the events of 9/11.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
A site just chock full of disinformation and lies. For instance:
"I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter". (Exaggeration added for size of Hani, he was tiny, lets just put it that way). We at pilotsfor911truth.org feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN."
So they don't know what happened but are making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. They then admit to deliberately exaggerating to try to make a point. Also, they fail to mention that according to reports from people on the planes, the pilots were simply killed as quickly as possible.
http://physics911.net/
A group calling itself Physics 911 but they only have two people listed that have a background in physics and one of those is Steven Jones.
In short, these are just more truther sites repeating the same old crap that has been totally discredited by every serious scientific investigation that's been done. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -5/+5The couldn't find a demolitions expert here in America that would talk about this? They guy doesn't really sound very sure of himself. Couldn't they find someone closer to home that could comment on this... someone who we don't have to rely on translators, someone with verifiable credentials?
- card51short, on 08/22/2008, -5/+8tkstock, why would his origin matter?
What are you denying everything that could change your worldview? - Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -9/+7@tkstock
Danny Jowenko Made his assessment based not on evidence but on watching the same heavily edited video that the Cult of 9/11 has been posting as "evidence" of a controlled demolition. You have to take Jowenko's statement with a huge grain of salt. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -5/+9"Danny Jowenko Made his assessment based not on evidence but on watching the same heavily edited video..."
Herkimer is everything a conspiracy with you? Cmon, you're almost 60...why are you obsessing over conspiracy theories online 10 hours a day? Start a family while you still can! - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5card51short, his origin affects how you take the person's statements. If he's an international demolitions expert who has experience demolishing high-rise buildings, that's significant. If he's a high school art teacher, it would change how you view his statements, no?
I don't want to change my view such that I would see things through a soda straw. I prefer to see the whole picture, thanks.
Herkimer, that explains a lot. I wonder what he says about the NIST report in its entirety (if he really is an "expert"). - Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -8/+5Please feel free to disregard everything that card51short posts. He's been on my block list for a very long time for obvious reasons.
The problem with Jowenko's statement simply demonstrates the major problem that everyone in the Cult of 9/11 demonstrates. They look at that video and believe that it looks like a controlled demolition so to them that is absolute, irrefutable evidence that it was a controlled demolition. It's people like them that keep con-men and magicians in business. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -5/+4"card51short, his origin affects how you take the person's statements. If he's an international demolitions expert who has experience demolishing high-rise buildings, that's significant. If he's a high school art teacher, it would change how you view his statements, no?"
A high school art teacher or a demolitions expert is not an "origin". You're thinking of "occupation". Try again.
"Herkimer, that explains a lot. I wonder what he says about the NIST report in its entirety (if he really is an "expert")."
Are you now saying he's not an expert? Conspiracy nut. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5I see why he's on your block list, Herkimer - he's just a grenade thrower.
card, his occupation and his origin matters. The fact they had to go to a foreign country to find someone to buy into their theory is a good start. Being overseas makes it harder to find out who this guy is and what his credentials are. Are you saying an occupation is not an origin of expertise? Constructionist nut.
I'm saying he's not an expert until proven otherwise. There are hundreds if not thousands of experts here in the states (experts in demolishing high-rise structures). They obviously couldn't find a local expert to buy into their conspiracy. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -6/+3"card, his occupation and his origin matters. The fact they had to go to a foreign country to find someone to buy into their theory is a good start. Being overseas makes it harder to find out who this guy is and what his credentials are. Are you saying an occupation is not an origin of expertise? Constructionist nut."
Of course occupation matters. Where he is from is not. It's a bad argument.
I can just as easily say that perhaps most American experts would be harder to reach since they were most affected by the tragedy of 9/11. They immediately will shut down as soon as an inside job theory is proposed.
"I'm saying he's not an expert until proven otherwise. There are hundreds if not thousands of experts here in the states (experts in demolishing high-rise structures). They obviously couldn't find a local expert to buy into their conspiracy."
Please link me to the demolition experts who have gone on record to say fire caused WTC7. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -3/+5Sure, Card, here you go:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_publi ...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Can you link me to someone with more expertise than them?
So the verifiability of the "expert" doesn't matter? So, you're argument is that every demolitions expert in this country was affected by 9/11 and couldn't give an objective analysis? Conspiracy nut. - ZZeke, on 08/22/2008, -4/+6Tk, you've got to be kidding me....nobody throws more grenades around here than Herk the jerk. Almost 2 years straight he's on digg 24/7 insulting and cursing out anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him. at a certain point, a sane man would realize what a huge waste of time it is to argue the same points with the same people every single day when it's completely obvious your opponents are not going to change their minds - which is why I don't usually jump in to these 911 threads anymore - god forbid I might agree with something the truth movement says or believes, I've been slandered and insulted enough...
You seem to want to debate facts, and that's honorable, but your buddy isn't worried about facts nearly as much as he's here to antagonize and belittle all those who would even consider anything but the government line - and that goes for EVERYTHING, not just 911. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -4/+4"Sure, Card, here you go:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_publi ...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Can you link me to someone with more expertise than them?"
It won't open on my work computer...can you provide a list of experts along with their qualifications?
www.ae911truth.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
The important thing here is that we have experts on both sides. We can both claim our experts are better experts or that one side has more but what we both can't deny is it takes a very open mind for someone (especially an American) to think that their government could do something like this. Many people, no matter how intelligent, will immediately dismiss this information without even looking into it.
I'm not saying this is the case because, to be honest, I don't know many explosives experts on either side of the spectrum.
All I can say is it's much easier to dismiss our claims as crazy at first glance which tends to push people away from investigation. I know that I was laughing when I was first introduced to these theories and I refused to even look at them for almost a month before I started really researching. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4The problem is that you have a handful of people actually seeking the truth, and hundreds/thousands of followers who swallow everything hook line and sinker because they have a natural predilection for anti-government conspiracies. They blindly repeat everything they hear, even after it's been debunked.
The fact is that 9/11/2001 is an experience unlike any other. At no other point in history have large jetliners slammed into some of the tallest buildings in the world in one of the most-crowded cities in the world. These buildings collapsed because of science that is mostly but not entirely known - there are uncertainties because of our lack of experience with such a unique event. No one TRULY has experience with it (until now). The fact that the destruction was so complete makes it even harder to understand and reconstruct the events. Entities (NIST, FEMA) have made valiant attempts to reconstruct these events, and these reconstructions continue to be the best explanation of what happened. You can pick it apart all you want, but unless you actually come up with your own theory that you can model and pose as an alternative, you're just throwing grenades.
For starters, take the computer model of WTC 1 and 2 and design a demolition plan that would match what was seen to actually happen. I expect this will be impossible because thermite demolition of this magnitude would require more visibility than the covert entity would require to accomplish it. Thermite requires a 6 to 1 mass ratio to the steel it proposes to melt. Explosives would have been seen in all of the video footage of the collapse.
There isn't a working theory by the truthers that would actually WORK. That's your problem. All you can do is pick apart the publicized version of what happened. - bluezinc, on 08/22/2008, -4/+4DEAR TROOFERS:
If you FAIL to make your case to someone, then don't call them ignorant or stupid. Your elaborate, confusing, and very unlikely theory (assuming you choose just one) is already hard to believe. When someone says, "I don't buy that" don't respond with, "you just want to keep your head in the sand!"
That's NOT how people debate these things. You make your case, someone refutes it, you clarify and explain, and so on. You may continue this until your argument stops making sense and/or contradicts itself WHICH IT HAS ON BOTH COUNTS.
- honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -6/+21@seiga
- eLp619, on 08/22/2008, -12/+2Theres no possible way of determing wether or not that was a bomb, a plane hitting the tower, or one of the the towers collapsing itself. Theres not even any proof that that video is real footage, let alone from Ground Zero.
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -6/+9You're right, it might've been filmed on the moon. Oh, that's right, we never landed on the moon.
How many people do you think are involved in this conspircy, anyway...? All the news anchors that were covering it live... and so on. - AgmLauncher, on 08/22/2008, -5/+8And there's no way of determining whether that sound wasn't edited in by the author who put it up on youtube...
But hey, if it's on youtube, it must be true! - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -1/+8Judging by the way the people in the video react, I can believe the sound is real. But that sound could have occurred at any time, and doesn't necessarily correlate to WTC 7 collapse.
The fact that the video shows the sun fairly high in the sky (official sunset was at 7:13pm on that day) leads me to believe the video is earlier in the day. The shadow under the phone booth is roughly 45 degrees, which would put the time closer to 3pm at the latest. The collapse occurred at 5:20pm, less than two hours before sunset. Given that NYC is at 40 degrees north latitude, at noon on September 11 the sun would be at it's highest point and would still be only 51.8 degrees above the horizon. At 5:20pm, the sun would be 20 degrees above the horizon, which would be below the tops of most of the surrounding buildings.
I think it's safe to say the video does NOT correlate to the collapse of WTC 7, therefore is meaningless. - Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -4/+6@tkstock
To date, the truthers have implicated the Bush administration, the entire US military, the FBI, the CIA, the NYPD, the FDNY, the BATF, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the Silverstein Group, Israel, the Mossad, Pakistan, the FAA and everyone who claims to have been an eyewitness to the planes striking either the towers or the Pentagon as members of the conspiracy. They started out implicating just a few thousand people but now it's in to the millions. And I'm sure that my list is incomplete. I can't remember everything these idiots post. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4The funny thing is that they will deny scientific analysis but accept circumstantial evidence without question. They are highly critical of any science or theory that disproves their own, yet they will readily adopt any pet theory which falls in line with theirs.
The truthers don't seek the truth, they seek their version of it. - eLp619, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3How come I get burried, peoplr reply stating the same thing, and they get the thumbs up?
And tkstock, tell me how many news reporters and anchor people you see in this clip... The number of times it is possible to have an even, 2 sided aregument on digg... =/ - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -1/+3eLp619,
I think I misunderstood what you were posting - I thought you were talking about the videos of the planes actually hitting the towers - I had just read a comment where someone was questioning whether or not even that video was not real. Sorry. - ssn697, on 08/22/2008, -3/+5"To date, the truthers have implicated the Bush administration, the entire US military, the FBI, the CIA, the NYPD, the FDNY, the BATF, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the Silverstein Group, Israel, the Mossad, Pakistan, the FAA and everyone who claims to have been an eyewitness to the planes striking either the towers or the Pentagon as members of the conspiracy. They started out implicating just a few thousand people but now it's in to the millions. And I'm sure that my list is incomplete. I can't remember everything these idiots post."
You forgot MIT, NIST, Popular Mechanics, ASCE, University of Sydney, Cambridge, Michigan State, all the families of the people on board the planes, the people who weren't REALLY on the planes (cuz they were remote controlled, you know!), the lady who took the picture of United 93 crash plume.
I am sure I forgot some as well. The list is posted somewhere, and it is in the millions now. It takes a LOT of people to fabricate a truther version of events... - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4ssn697,
I think the Iraq War is just a fabrication - the $10 billion a month is really going to pay off the millions of people to keep them quiet about 9/11. How much do you get? My check is around $10K a month.
Oh wait... no. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -4/+3that's insane to think so many people were involved. 19 hijackers did it all by themselves. Case closed.
The evidence points to 19 guys with boxcutters. Oh, right, there's no evidence for that either ;) - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -2/+3Yeah, the people on the planes just magically disappeared. Maybe they're in government holding cells. The phone calls from family members on Flight 93 were all fabricated. Yeah.
You ever hear of Occam's Razor?
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -6/+9You're right, it might've been filmed on the moon. Oh, that's right, we never landed on the moon.
- rv361162, on 08/22/2008, -7/+3...and buried already right as it makes the front page? Oh, thanks Digg, with all the positive responses about this article and +200 comments, 5 people bury it and it's at the back of the line...hmmmm, come on Digg. That ***** stinks and you know it.
- Herkimer56, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5Nobody likes a whiner.
- rv361162, on 08/22/2008, -3/+1Nobody likes NIST's ***** either, Herkimer.
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5Here's a series of questions for all you truthers:
What is the working theory on how the whole thing was pulled off? Start to finish. Who did it? What was the timeline? Who was involved and who knows about it? What materials were used to bring the buildings down? Where were those materials placed? What was the involvement of the hijackers? Who coordinated with the hijackers? Was the Pentagon also brought down by explosives?
No links to theory sites that have a bunch of arguments against the government theory, I want an explanation of how truthers think it DID happen.- SatoriSeeker, on 08/22/2008, -3/+1Google for Who Killed John O'Neill
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3It looks like the World Trade Centers falling killed him - what's your point? So the FBI was pissed off because he was a troublesome employee towards the end of his career, so they orchestrated 9/11 to kill him?
So, you're saying the FBI is behind 9/11? That's the first answer. Where's the rest?
- card51short, on 08/22/2008, -3/+7tkstock why are you asking us to speculate?
We simply don't believe the official story. A lot of us have our "theories" about what happened but who cares? What we need is a new non-government investigation.
We can speculate all day.- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5It's called speculation when you don't have scientific evidence. Several sources have provided scientific evidence as to what happened, all that's been returned is speculation about unknowns in the scientific evidence. All the truthers have done is speculate, and your complaining because I ask them to do it more?
The fact is that truthers are not productive in society unless they actually seek the truth. So far I've seen the truth shunned aside when it's handed to you because it doesn't fit your version of the truth.
So now I'm asking for your version of the truth. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -4/+5tkstock, incorrect. Saying building 7 fell like a demolition and when we have 400+ experts on our side, it's not speculation. It calls into question your side's theory.
Having 100+ eyewitnesses of explosions throughout the building is not speculation.
Having multiple sources saying there was a countdown of WTC7's collapse is not speculation.
Norman Mineta's testimony is not speculation.
The lack of large plane parts at the Pentagon and Shanksville is not specualtion.
The PNAC documents are not speculation.
Admitted cases of past false flag events are not speculation.
The fact that Bush and Co. have benefited in a large way is not speculation.
The fact that Bush and Co. have been lying numerous times in their 8 years is not speculation.
The fact that we have multiple CIA, FBI and government insiders who have blown the whistle is not speculation.
The fact that the last Italian president said "all intelligence agencies" he has spoken with know for a fact that there was Western involvement in 9/11 is not speculation.
The fact that passports of the hijackers were claimed to have been found while no black boxes were is not speculation.
The fact that Colonel Robert Wright held up a document while sobbing on C-Span saying he's been threatened with arrest if he tells us what he knows about 9/11 and all he can say is the bushes vacation with the bin ladens is not speculation.
and on and on... - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4400 experts? You mean the philosophers, english teachers, psychiatrists, etc?
Where are these 100+ eyewitnesses who heard explosions? I've heard of one NYPD officer who is suffering PTSD says he heard explosions.
"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
One final and most-telling question: if they had to demolish WTC 7, why cover it up? They could've said they needed to bring it down in a controlled fashion because it was unstable and NOBODY would have questioned them. So why go through the effort of covering it up? Where is the motive?
Why are you speculating so much since you didn't want to? It's all speculation until you have scientific evidence. Otherwise you're just taking the words of a few fellow truthers who may or may not be telling the truth. All I've seen is spurious sources and half-truths - nothing that can be verified directly.
- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5It's called speculation when you don't have scientific evidence. Several sources have provided scientific evidence as to what happened, all that's been returned is speculation about unknowns in the scientific evidence. All the truthers have done is speculate, and your complaining because I ask them to do it more?
- seiga, on 08/22/2008, -3/+2@quakerots
Whats *would* it sound like if one floor of a building came crashing into another one?
I know that sometimes when a stack of cardboard is dropped it sounds exactly like a gunshot. I can imagine that if the stack were 10000 times heavier, 50 times the footprint, and in the form of a building it *might* sound like an explosion.
Do you even know what controlled demolitions sound like when they go off by themselves?
But you know, your theory is probably right. Good to know the troof. - card51short, on 08/22/2008, -3/+4A denier needs to explain to this dumb troofer how it took 50+ minutes for the first floor to collapse (in the impact and fire zone) and less than 20 seconds for the remaining 70 (undamaged) floors to collapse into dust.
Too bad they can't :(- tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5You're kidding, right? Did the floor collapse because of a building support column failure? Nope, didn't think so.
- MarkEarhart, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2More insulting than the official story by the 9/11 Commission.
- spynes, on 08/21/2008, -55/+8the new sandvich gives the heavy gas, which can explain the large explosion heard. Move along.
- 2bsbc, on 08/21/2008, -50/+357You can't argue with the new phenomenon, mother *****. You want to know why? Cause I ***** created it. That's why. Now, shut up and quit thinking. That's our job over here at the "Make ***** Up As We Go Along Institute."....Ahem, I mean the "National Institute of Standards and Technology."
- gcnaddict, on 08/22/2008, -40/+49I happen to have a number of friends who work at their main campus in Gaithersburg. I've taken a number of tours of various units within their main campus, and I've also taken pictures of the WTC I-Beams (and those box beam thingies that are like I-Beams but are more like long rectangles. No idea what they're called). Here's one: http://i35.tinypic.com/505j0g.jpg
My point is this: from everything I've seen (including the nuclear reactor and the various tools used to analyze neutron streams from it), they don't "make ***** up." Every conclusion those guys have reached makes perfect sense based on what they were given and the data they retrieved. They are, quite literally, the one government institution which still has significant credibility.
It depresses me when people make comments without justification just because they want to rile emotions. I'm not too fond of the government right now either, but don't hate on NIST.- bphicke, on 08/22/2008, -18/+66I once took a tour of a Budweiser factory. I now put chemical engineer on my resume.
- blakestah, on 08/22/2008, -16/+39I hope they showed you the high sulfur attack on the steel samples, and explained to you what it means....
This is an actual FEMA report, mind you, showing clear evidence of explosive attacks on the steel beams in WTC7. Maybe NIST didn't read the FEMA report?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurg ...
Here is the conclusions for the WTC7 sample (again, these are FEMA's words)
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
------------
Now, where does one find this sort of high heat high sulfur attack?
Thermite charges, that's where. Addition of small percentages of sulfur to thermite result in more effective steel cutting charges - it enables the charge to cut the steel at lower temperatures. - omenmedia, on 08/22/2008, -7/+47Well, perhaps next time you stop by, you could ask why Dr. John Gross from NIST publicly denied any knowledge of the molten steel "hot spots" that were in the rubble for weeks after the attacks, and when informed by an audience member that it was observed both by eyewitnesses and NASA thermal imaging, he then asked that person to send him the images, yet refused to give the same individual his contact details after the talk.
Seriously, if it has taken them this long to come out with a report on WTC7, don't you think they are grasping at straws trying to come up with a reason for why it collapsed? - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -30/+16That's funny, because Chapter 5 of FEMA 403 which talks about the collapse of WTC7 doesn't mention sulfur at all.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
You didn't think anyone would actually look, did you? What you're linking to is not the actual FEMA report, it's something provided by 9-11 conspiracy sites. - JoeRW, on 08/22/2008, -2/+30Hes referring to Appendix C of the FEMA report.
- bphicke, on 08/22/2008, -2/+16/foot in mouth
- deepbl, on 08/22/2008, -5/+33You can't put scientific integrity in the bank and save it for later. Regardless of how credible they have been in the past, they still must follow the process of scientific inquiry when they agree to conduct an investigation.
To say that controlled demolition can be ruled out because nobody heard any bombs going off is simply illogical. There is nothing specific about controlled demolition that requires noise-making bombs - the only requirement is that the building is demolished on cue. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -15/+9Got me on that one. They do mention the sulfidication, although they draw no conclusions from it.
Alright, let me ask you this: can you see a scenario where WTC 1 and 2 was not an inside job, and WTC 7 was? I mean, it doesn't make sense that WTC 7 was an inside job, but WTC 1 and 2 wasn't. The people who set up WTC 7 would've had to know that WTC 1 and 2 were going to collapse, and that the collapse would hit WTC 7, otherwise there would be no excuse for the collapse of WTC 7.
So, it was either all and inside job, or none of it was.
So, if all of it was, then the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 would have had to be planned sufficiently well as to cause damage to WTC 7 so you could knock down that building too. Make sense so far? So, you would have had to use thermite in WTC 1 and 2, but only in precisely the locations that the planes hit, because a collapse at any other point in the building would be too suspicious. So, you would've had to coordinate with the planes' pilots where they would have to hit the buildings exactly.
You see what I'm getting at - the more complex a setup required to carry this off, the less likely our incompetent government is to be able to pull it off.
The preponderance of evidence supports what everyone knows to be true, but conspiracy theorists latch on to the small amount of unknowns (such as where specifically the sulfur came from) and make up their own explanations.
Just curious, where is the evidence of the pools of molten steel they say they found? - Phylodome, on 08/22/2008, -2/+5http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
- thcobbs, on 08/22/2008, -8/+13@blakestah
No where in your "report" does it list any concentrations, percentages, or anything... it just throws up some unscaled graphs that you have to take for fact. Oh, and did you know Steel has sulfur in it already?
Sorry, your "report" will only show you what you want to see. - tkstock, on 08/22/2008, -7/+4Phylodome, I assume that link was for me... where does it say anything about molten iron, or molten anything? I may be missing it... but I don't see it.
- gcnaddict, on 08/22/2008, -8/+5"You see what I'm getting at - the more complex a setup required to carry this off, the less likely our incompetent government is to be able to pull it off."
Replying to this because I need to point something out for the truthers:
This kind of coordination requires manpower unknown to any successful secret operation. Nothing of engineering magnitude this significant has been pulled off in secret by the US Government in the age of rapid communication. Nothing at all.
The logical counter argument to this would be "but if there was one, you'd never know!"
My reply: Yes, we would know, which would in turn negate the secret. No single person shares the same moral compass. The more people are involved in a project, the more likely (exponentially!) it will be that significant details will leak. - DestroyFascism, on 08/22/2008, -3/+13Lets face it. Who does NIST get money from?
- honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -3/+12@gcnaddict
Its "NOT" the guys doing the tests, research and etc that I don't agree with its the "few" who get to take that information and decide what the conclusion is. It is those few and their conclusion that I and many others disagree with.
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided!
Here is just some of the evidence of the obvious and unprecedented suppression and distortion of scientific analysis for political and economic reasons.
Although the authors of the official reports are very similar, the collapse explanations offered by the reports are quite different. Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti were also involved in the Weidlinger study, released in October, 2002, just five months after FEMA’s. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/silverste ...
That study, commissed by Silverstein for his insurance claim, exclusively blames column failure for the collapses. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners. ... It thus stands in stark contrast to the FEMA Report, whose pancake theory blames floor truss failures. Why would the same individuals endorse two contradictory theories in their different roles? Apparently for political and economic reasons. The fact that failures of truss supports could indicate a design fault, and therefore fail to support the “two occurrences” claimed by Silverstein. That is why clearly implausible aspects of the column failure theory required the invention of the more sophisticated and truss-failure theory to sell the collapse theory. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columnsre.ht ...
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided!
The same principals headed the various government investigations of the WTC collapses, the Pentagon crash, and Oklahoma City bombing, despite the fact that the investigations involved assessments of entirely different kinds of structures inflicted with different kinds of damage. Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 1.5 million engineers in the US? The authors of the official report on the Murrah Federal Building—Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, Paul Mlaker, and Mete Sozeny—were all among the initial team of the ASCE WTC investigation. Several of these individuals have strong connections to industries that benefited from the attack, such as armaments makers and oil and gas producers!
“Bush Science”—a corruption of allegedly scientific investigations by the Bush administration policy goals, citing condemnations by prominent scientists and Nobel laureates, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the House Committee on Government Reform.
http://www.democracynow.org/print.pl?sid=04/02/24/ ...
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. ...
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politic ...
The Bush administration has been criticized heavily for their disdain of science. The House Committee on Government Reform found “numerous instances where the administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” Also a group of leading scientists, now including 49 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academics, has said that the Bush administration engages in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe ...
Now members of Congress calling for investigations into the suppression and manipulation of government science. There is also hundreds of scientists who reported significant interference with scientific work by the Bush administration!!! Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s unprecedented suppression and distortion of scientific analysis on a wide range of issues has continued unabated.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe ...
Political appointees have distorted and censored scientific findings that contradict established policies. In some cases, they have manipulated the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interfe ...
NIST and the Department of Commerce to which it reports are both headed by Bush appointees.
Again political appointees have distorted and censored scientific findings that contradict established policies.
NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION: NFPA 921.
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided!
NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on government contracts or on the official story itself!
This second report done by NIST inorder to tie up the loose ends is a direct product of the Bush adminastration, with cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez’ name emblazoned on page one. Of course NIST itself is a government agency whos directors are also presidential appointees. Those relying on this report always fail to note the fact that the leaders of NIST’ WTC investigation were appointed directly by George W. Bush.
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided!
Shankar Nair, was one of those “experts” on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. Nair’s company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.
http://www.teng.com/teng2k3/mainframe.asp
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided!
Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony. Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster.Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.http://national-experts.com/members2/witness.asp?d ...
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_br ...
Sec 6-5: Important to remember that conflict of interest should be avoided!
Another expert who served on NIST’s advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton’s partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11Early on Thornton said: “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse.” He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Also see James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/RyanK_PostingVe ...
The words of the investigations themselves show that they started with the conclusion that the collapses of the three skyscrapers were entirely the result of the plane crashes and subsequent fires. Gene Corley stated that he knew that the towers were going to collapse before they did, which is interesting because no tall steel-framed building had ever collapsed from fires. Charles Thornton stated to Karl Koch, “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse.” Shankar Nair, a contributor to the NIST investigation, stated on September 19, 2001, “Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of event that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.”
The guiding of an investigation by pre-determined conclusions is antithetical to good science. It becomes Bush science that is motivated by a clear agenda! - honestjoe, on 08/22/2008, -2/+9@thcobbs
NATIONAL STANDARD FOR FIRE INVESTIGATION: NFPA 921.
Sec 12-4: Unusual residues ...could arise from thermite, magnesium or other pyrotechnic materials!
Note that sulfur is:
“The most popular vaporizing agent due to the fact it lowers ignition temperature for most pyrotechnic mixtures.” --From the web page: Pyrotechnic Chemicals
http://web.archive.org/web/20040415193823/http://m ...
The Twin Towers and WTC 7 had the puzzling sulfur residue! World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C Source”Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination.
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm FEMA, Appendix C
• http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
• NY Times: "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.“
Sulfur is used with thermite (called “thermate”) to cut fast through steel.
Electron microprobe data shows us that the previously molten metal has Manganese and
Fluorine in abundance. (where did Fluorine come from?)
Fluorine is present in an oxidizer using Polytetrafluoroethylene as its base, used in thermite charges.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/1344-QDsu ...
• Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) is also commonly used as an oxidizer in thermite-reactants (aluminothermics).
• Hence, K, Mn and F are often present in thermite residue, suggesting they are part of a “thermite fingerprint” at WTC.
"Many different incendiary devices are constantly being created in order to mislead fire investigators into thinking the fire is due to natural causes. Thanks to skilled fire investigators, experience and technological advances, the mystery of these devices and how they work is soon understood and exposed. In recent years the use of thermite reactions as incendiary devices has gained popularity with arsonists because they are easily ignited with a match, burn quickly and can generate a very intense heat in excess of 4000(F." http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html
“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn
pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition,
containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain
more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.”
After testing uncontaminated dust samples taken within 20 minutes of the collapse, that when examined we find these spheres (proof of high temp), which match in chemical/metallurgic composition with the commercial grade thermite but they have also found UNIGNITED THERMITE! (Not just the ingredients but premixed HIGHLY FLAMMABLE Thermite!) And not just small traces but all throughout the WTC dust! And the unignited thermite also matches with the spheres found in the WTC dust as well as with the commercial grade thermite!
Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in ALL indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”
1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)
2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)
3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.
4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).
The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.
Then we take those micro spheres from the WTC dust samples and compare them.
Commercial thermite was purchased by engineer John Parulis and latter tested by Jones and other colleges and the results were SHOCKING!
The professional grade (not home made or J
- gcnaddict, on 08/22/2008, -40/+49I happen to have a number of friends who work at their main campus in Gaithersburg. I've taken a number of tours of various units within their main campus, and I've also taken pictures of the WTC I-Beams (and those box beam thingies that are like I-Beams but are more like long rectangles. No idea what they're called). Here's one: http://i35.tinypic.com/505j0g.jpg
