A Kinder, more Professional Thread on the WTC

[Alarum]

Again, the article by the New Yorker was largely quoting the people who designed and built the building.

People who had every reason in the world to say, "It couldn't have fallen," and no reason at all to say, "It was designed poorly," are saying, "IT was designed poorly."

I did post the link. I posted parts from the article, but I posted the link TO the article.

Why is your attitude so rude?

Point of order, it's sometimes useful to quote people when you're addressing them, otherwise you'll have 2-3 people scratching their heads and going "Am I being rude?" I think I know who you're refering too, but I'd like to be surer, because I didn't think I was jumping on toes here.

Anyway, I'd just like to say I'll address factual errors where I see them, even if they're nominally from a position that supports mine. In this case it's nice to think the fire could have burned at 2000 degrees, as it removes the need for weakening of steel, but it didn't. With only the outer walls for oxygen fuel, the flames would have billowed out of the building, while the inside they would have been oxygen starved and nearly non-existant (of course that didn't help the columns near the hole much, who not-so-coincidentally recieved the most oxygen, and were also the weakest point, so they got up to 800 while the rest remained very cool (comparatively cool, but steel thinks 200 centigrade is just fine).

Just look at the nice black smoke - that means combustion is producing carbon - clear signs that only part of the hydrocarbon is being consumed due to lack of oxygen (for this experiment burn wood in a relatively enclosed area. Look at the nice black smoke. Now fan it. See how the embers start to glow brighter, but the amount of smoke doesn't increase?)

 

[AmariJah]

Again, the article by the New Yorker was largely quoting the people who designed and built the building.

People who had every reason in the world to say, "It couldn't have fallen," and no reason at all to say, "It was designed poorly," are saying, "IT was designed poorly."

I did post the link. I posted parts from the article, but I posted the link TO the article.

Why is your attitude so rude?

& why are you and others showing such a condescending attitude?
For those referring to others as "conspiracy theorists"- this reveals nothing but your own arrogance and self righteousness. The official version of 9/11 is a much more far fetched conspiracy theory than several of the well researched theories presented by people who reject the fabricated "official" version. My question is why are you folks so adamantly against a FULL AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION OF 9/11? When you boil down all of those who are part of the 9/11 honesty movement- they are merely asking that a SERIOUS & COMPLETE INVESTIGATION BE DONE AND THAT ALL IMPORTANT AND PERTINANT QUESTIONS BE ADDRESSED AND ANSWERED! The mere fact that the Bush Admin. refuses a full investigation and complete disclosure is for many a big red flag and perhaps even a smoking gun! This only makes people more persistent about getting to the bottom of all of this. Why would any honest Christian or simply honest American be against a complete impartial investigation into one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated upon American soil???

 

[Alarum]

& why are you and others showing such a condescending attitude?
For those referring to others as "conspiracy theorists"- this reveals nothing but your own arrogance and self righteousness. The official version of 9/11 is a much more far fetched conspiracy theory than several of the well researched theories presented by people who reject the fabricated "official" version. My question is why are you folks so adamantly against a FULL AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION OF 9/11? When you boil down all of those who are part of the 9/11 honesty movement- they are merely asking that a SERIOUS & COMPLETE INVESTIGATION BE DONE AND THAT ALL IMPORTANT AND PERTINANT QUESTIONS BE ADDRESSED AND ANSWERED! The mere fact that the Bush Admin. refuses a full investigation and complete disclosure is for many a big red flag and perhaps even a smoking gun! This only makes people more persistent about getting to the bottom of all of this. Why would any honest Christian or simply honest American be against a complete impartial investigation into one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated upon American soil???

I'm not against a full and impartial investigation. I'm just tired of people claiming that their story is not 'far out there.' Frankly, the investigation got well past 'how the towers fell' and into the whys and politics of the entire deal, which is why Bush cut them off.

The fact of the matter is that the official story makes perfect sense. The planes crashed into the walls of the building, damaging the supports and igniting a fire along the support walls. The support wall simeltaniously expanded (like any heated object) and weakened, both increasing the load on them and decreasing their ability to bear it. Without the fire coating, which was destroyed in the crash, the support wall finally buckled outwards, resulting in a distinctive lean in the building. This lean overloaded all the other supports which cracked like dominos. This overstressed the core columns, which snapped, and the top of the building slid sideways off the core, toppling over. These multiple stories crashed through every single floor, bringing down the entire building.

There is nothing farfetched in this. You see the building burning. You see a distinct tilt to the side as the wall of columns buckle. You see the building topple and fall into itself. This is what happened. It seems very likely, certainly more likely then hundreds of pounds of thermite being smuggled up to the exact floor the planes hit on and used to sever the core (which doesn't explain the tilt before collapse, or, y'know, much of anything).

 

[AmariJah]

While I appreciate that you have bought the official version of 9/11 hook line and sinker Alarum- and while I support freedom of thought and freedom of speech... To me the official version is clearly a far fetched and bungled conspiracy theory! The only way I personally could buy it would be to first of all put blinders on so that I couldn't study and review more than about 10% of the pertinent facts, then I would have to bring my education and IQ down several years and or points. Because whether you view me as a crazy "nut" or not- after having examined all the available evidence (& I have been studying this heinous even quite laboriously during the past 4.5 years.) I can only determine that although I do not conclusively know exactly what happened on 9/11... I DO KNOW THAT EVERYTHING DOES NOT ADD UP & it is clear that the US Govt. is hiding and covering up a great deal of evidence. My position is that WE THE PEOPLE demand that every file is released and that no more evidence be destroyed- My position is that there be full and complete disclosure from the US Govt. immediately! I realize that many people don't like this position but it is the only way to lay to rest once and for all the great division between those who accept the official stroy line and those who do not!
IMHO of coarse!

 

[arnegrim]

My position is that there be full and complete disclosure from the US Govt. immediately!

The problem is... you will accept nothing but files or paperwork that show the US government as 100% complicit in their collapse... so even if they DO release everything... you will continue to assume they are hiding something.

 

[AmariJah]

The problem is... you will accept nothing but files or paperwork that show the US government as 100% complicit in their collapse... so even if they DO release everything... you will continue to assume they are hiding something.

You have no idea whatsoever what I will or will not "accept"! And truth be told arnegrim- it really has nothing to do with what I will accept. It has to do with A REAL, IMPARTIAL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION AND FULL DISCLOSURE regardless of the outcome! This is all about truth, honesty and justice? What the US Govt has been doing leading up to and following 9/11 has been a series of very misleading and deceptive tactics including any number of crimes- of which tampering with and destroying evidence is merely one!
Time to get real about the 9/11 cover-up! It's very real and it is very un-just!

 

[AmariJah]

It is crystal clear to me- If you support the Bush Administration and the greatly controlled and neatly edited "official version" of what happened on 9/11 then you also support a cover-up. And like the Bush Administration you are not really concerned with getting to the bottom of who was really responsible and involved for 9/11- nor are you particularly interested in bringing those criminals to JUSTICE. (Especially if some of those criminals just happen to be part of the neo-con war mongering Bush Administration!!!)

 

[Marek]

It is crystal clear to me- If you support the Bush Administration and the greatly controlled and neatly edited "official version" of what happened on 9/11 then you also support a cover-up. And like the Bush Administration you are not really concerned with getting to the bottom of who was really responsible and involved for 9/11- nor are you particularly interested in bringing those criminals to JUSTICE. (Especially if some of those criminals just happen to be part of the neo-con war mongering Bush Administration!!!)

There is a big difference between classified evidence and a cover-up. If it is so crystal clear, then please give me some crystal clear facts that show our government was involved in the latter and not the former.

 

[AmariJah]

There is a big difference between classified evidence and a cover-up. If it is so crystal clear, then please give me some crystal clear facts that show our government was involved in the latter and not the former.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
Simply read the top 10 listed

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
Now here is an interesting interview- I would say that there are some clear facts concerning the US Govt's complicity and subsequent cover-up
There is such an overwhelming body of evidence including eye witness testimonies concerning the US Governments complicity and cover-up of events leading up to and surrounding 9/11 that we are now beyone the point of merely speculating- it is beyond the shadow of any doubt that at the very least the US and Israeli Governments had some foreknowledge of the WTC attacks and have worked very hard to cover up and put gag orders on anyone who might leak any of this very senstive information.

 

[Arkanin]

Given what I saw a grass fire do to several hundred thosand dollars worth of steel equipment, I know a simple fire can and does melt steel.

Agreed, you are absolutely right. I just want to add for people asking 'why didn't the steel compact' that it did indeed compact by a very small percentage over time before collapse that was consistent with the young's modulus of the steel. At a certain point, it finally collapsed at which point you have the terminal velocity chain-reaction. Also, it was very likely the floor plates that collapsed initially to start this reaction and not the steel beams.

In conclusion, there is a very plausible natural explanation for the buildings' collapses without explosives or government conspiracies.

 

[Marek]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
Simply read the top 10 listed

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm
Now here is an interesting interview- I would say that there are some clear facts concerning the US Govt's complicity and subsequent cover-up
There is such an overwhelming body of evidence including eye witness testimonies concerning the US Governments complicity and cover-up of events leading up to and surrounding 9/11 that we are now beyone the point of merely speculating- it is beyond the shadow of any doubt that at the very least the US and Israeli Governments had some foreknowledge of the WTC attacks and have worked very hard to cover up and put gag orders on anyone who might leak any of this very senstive information.

So your crystal clear facts are a website by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and then an interview by the same guy?

Let me ask again: If you could pick out one crystal clear fact that gives you the right to claim that anyone who believes the official version is supporting a cover-up, what would it be?

 

[AmariJah]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://physics911.net/reynolds.htm
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
You flippantly call Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist" yet he pales in comparison to Thomas Kean who was tapped as the 9/11 "whitewash" Comissioner. Kean admitted publicly that he saw no point in following the money trail. A tried and true method of sleuthing out those responsible for crimes.
http://jonesreport.com/articles/030406_kean_commission.html
He also dismissed any questioning about WTC 7 as unimportant and did not even include any comment about it in the final report.
Are you really this blind to what is right in fron of your nose?
[/FONT]

 

[AmariJah]

Agreed, you are absolutely right. I just want to add for people asking 'why didn't the steel compact' that it did indeed compact by a very small percentage over time before collapse that was consistent with the young's modulus of the steel. At a certain point, it finally collapsed at which point you have the terminal velocity chain-reaction. Also, it was very likely the floor plates that collapsed initially to start this reaction and not the steel beams.

In conclusion, there is a very plausible natural explanation for the buildings' collapses without explosives or government conspiracies.

There is now way in a million years that these buildings collapsed at nearly free- fall speed without offering any resistance simply because of impacts and fires hundreds of feet up. No matter what "theory" you come up with you cannot supercede the laws of physics which would prevent such picture perfect symetrical collapses taking place at nearly free fall speed as if nothing was underneath the upper floors! No way- no how! And particularly not for WTC 7
http://physics911.net/closerlook.htm
But- then again why would you want to wake up now?

 

[Marek]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://physics911.net/reynolds.htm
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]So your undeniable proof that millions of Americans are supporting a cover-up is that an economist is critical of the official version of the collapse of the WTC? Even when actual engineers and physicists agree with the official version here http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html , here http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/ , here http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml , and here http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ ?
[/FONT]

 

[Marek]

There is now way in a million years that these buildings collapsed at nearly free- fall speed without offering any resistance simply because of impacts and fires hundreds of feet up. No matter what "theory" you come up with you cannot supercede the laws of physics which would prevent such picture perfect symetrical collapses taking place at nearly free fall speed as if nothing was underneath the upper floors! No way- no how! And particularly not for WTC 7
http://physics911.net/closerlook.htm
But- then again why would you want to wake up now?

Please point out the problems in this analysis: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

 

[AmariJah]

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

I know that putting 2 & 2 together might be difficult for many these days- however when there are literally moutains of both clear and circumstantial evidence of the US Governments complicity and subsequent cover-up of 9/11 one would necessarily have to put proverbial "blinders' on to be able to dismiss all of the evidence pointing to foreknowledge, cover-up and complicity.
Nuf said- If you simply refuse to examine the available evidence to the contrary, and you are O.K. with all of the destruction of evidence and/ or lack of hard evidence provided by the Government then it is not surprising that you can still believe the "official" conspiracy theory!

 

[Marek]

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

Here's a few thoughts on S. Jones:

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

wikipedia.org

Now, if it is so clear that planes did not destroy the WTC, please point out some problems with this: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

If you cannot do this, them please admit that you are not qualified to make these outragous claims.

 

[AmariJah]

Here's a few thoughts on S. Jones:

Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

wikipedia.org

Now, if it is so clear that planes did not destroy the WTC, please point out some problems with this: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

If you cannot do this, them please admit that you are not qualified to make these outragous claims.

What a typical "political" response try to defame and undermine your opponent. Whereas it is obvious that I am not an expert or a physicist- Stephen Jones is and just because there are some who don't agree with him does not mean that he had not put forward some extremely important arguments and questions.
I think that the only really scary thing to me it that some people like yourself don't really care to research the facts, and are not interested in all of the damning evidence which irrefutably shows that the US Govt. did have foreknowledge and were at the very least complicit in the events of 9/11 and also had a hand in a following cover-up. I would be concerned if only one of those 3 were evident- but all 3 are obvious and you don't really care! The mere fact that you contiue to ignore these things speaks volumes to me about your quest for truth and justice for the victims of 9/11!.

 

[Marek]

This is what you said:
"There is now way in a million years that these buildings collapsed at nearly free- fall speed without offering any resistance simply because of impacts and fires hundreds of feet up. No matter what "theory" you come up with you cannot supercede the laws of physics which would prevent such picture perfect symetrical collapses taking place at nearly free fall speed as if nothing was underneath the upper floors! No way- no how!"

This site says you are wrong: http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

I was merely asking you to back up your claims, or admit that you might be wrong.

 

[Alarum]

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

I know that putting 2 & 2 together might be difficult for many these days- however when there are literally moutains of both clear and circumstantial evidence of the US Governments complicity and subsequent cover-up of 9/11 one would necessarily have to put proverbial "blinders' on to be able to dismiss all of the evidence pointing to foreknowledge, cover-up and complicity.
Nuf said- If you simply refuse to examine the available evidence to the contrary, and you are O.K. with all of the destruction of evidence and/ or lack of hard evidence provided by the Government then it is not surprising that you can still believe the "official" conspiracy theory!

Steve Jones is decent at Physics, but has no real ability to read the structural engineering reports. Wandering down to the section where he talks about the WTC collapse, the arrogance starts to become flat out staggering.

Lets review some evidence, which he doesn't give you directly \. Here are the notorious 'squibs'
http://911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html

Watch how the squibs running up the side of the building appear AFTER THE BUILDING BEGINS TO COLLAPSE! They're just windows blowing out from the collapse, not explosives. Explosive squibs preceed the collapse.

Here is a full analysis, showing how silly this theory is:
http://911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html

Now compare this to a real demolition:
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Choose one of the buildings being demolished that's tall. Note how every single time the squibs appear BEFORE the building is collapsing. This is because the velocity of the air being expelled is near the speed of sound, whereas the building is only falling due to gravity. The squibs cannot possibly be outrun by the collapse - his theory is bunk.

Steve Jones can't even get his own theory straight!

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis added.)

Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an independent investigation using all available data.

If I used two paragraphs like this, so close in contact, I'd be seriously asked to reconcile the two. Yet he doesn't. He's just throwing evidence at it, morphing the theory to fit what actually happened without admitting the witness reports are completely uncredible because the witnesses weren't trained to observe explosions (he can't even explain their observations with his own theory, they're just bunk frankly).

8. I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:

Catch the key phrase? No, it's not totally agree. It's EDITORIALIZED.
I like my scholarly works to be based on study, not editorials, kthx?

9. The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the “official” theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise.

You know when a guy can't even watch the bloody videos that the theory sucks. That's a straight down collapse, right there. Obviously.

Do I even need to explain why that section is stupid, or does the picture say it all?


Now I have to ask: Why do you people believe this stuff?