A Kinder, more Professional Thread on the WTC

[Prophetable]

Yes I do. If they had better sources then that, they would have used them.

Umm, yes God. After all only God would know that everyone references every resource they've got. Not!!!

Slanderous propeganda. So if its slander, you can prove it wrong. And yet the article still makes no mention of Hyman Brown, meaning they made up their 'facts.' Your denial involves hoping smily faces and long words disguise the fact that they lied, blatently.

There's plenty to proove it wrong. 'Proof' is in the eye of the beholder I guess
Another poster just mentioned the Titanic... Hrmmm the Twin towers and Building 7 equals THREE Titanics if that's the case. Also we've got facts to support a conspiracy.

Additionally, here is evidence that they were, in fact, never tested for fire:
http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_firetest.html

There's a lot of speculation in this article. There is Absolutely no proof that the supports would collapse due to fire. Only some allegations that they weren't tested properly. Infact the last few lines of the article suggest that people believed that buildings cannot collapse due to Fire. People have been brainwashed by coverup propaganda.

So, in fact, your site is lying.

Arrr.... some more slander to add to your judgement tally before God. How does the article above suggest that they are lying???

The same place you linked me to before. *YAWN*
And yet, the explaination betrays a fundimental lack of understanding, doesn't it? The quotes shows that the building was designed with the kinetic impact energy of the plane in mind, not the jet fuel.


Additionally, it wasn't modeled to take the plane that actually hit. The model was a 707 cruising for takeoff or landing. The modeled speed was 180 mph. The airplanes were flying at 470 and 590 mph. That's a lot more energy then their design ever anticipated.

Okay, so you're telling me that the designers :

A) Forgot that jet plane collisions involve jet fuel explosions.

and....

B) That they believed that any such collision would only take place at takeoff or landing speed.

Hrmmm..... Either they were very, very dumb people or your claims are misinformation. I'll let the reader decide.

http://www.fema.gov:80/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

I have no doubt this article is full of misinformation. Thank God most people won't take the time to read it and be brainwashed by it. If you think there is any scientific evidence in this 40 page piece of toilet roll, please cut and paste it so that I can gleefully examine it .

Undamaged, unheated columns may or may not have been able to support that. Every piece of evidence says the fire topped out well above 650 C, which is when the steel loses half its strength.

Interesting. One side and two corners and a few other columns is about equal to 30%. And yet at 650 C the steel had lost 50% of its strength. Is this supposed to be evidence of why it didn't collapse, or evidence of how it did?

To state that all the supports on one side of the building including both corners were damaged is one big exaggerated assumption. Even so all of the steel columns throughout the building would have had to melt in order for the building to collapse the way it did. Regardless there isn't evidence to suggest that firest burnt hot enough throughout the floors (On all three buildings mind you including Building 7!!!) to even weaken the supports.

Why don't we start a thread on building 7?

 

[k]

I believe the OP title is, "A Kinder, More Professional Thread on the WTC."

 

[Prophetable]

Some questions for those who believe the buildings collapsed due to damage from the collision and subsequent fires alone:

A) We have established that the subsequent fires did not burn hot enough to melt the steel supports.

How then ...... Do we explain the fact that molten metal was found at Ground Zero?

No fire can burn hot enough to do this.... without help from a substance that can dramatically increase the heat of the fire. What might have this been??

 

[trunks2k]

Umm, yes God. After all only God would know that everyone references every resource they've got. Not!!!

This is just silly. If you are writing a persuasive paper you give for the sources for your claims. Period. End of story. If you don't give sources the default position is that the claim has no validity. It's even worse if you give a source for a claim and the source does not say what the writers of said paper say it does.

 

[k]

Some questions for those who believe the buildings collapsed due to damage from the collision and subsequent fires alone:

A) We have established that the subsequent fires did not burn hot enough to melt the steel supports.

How then ...... Do we explain the fact that molten metal was found at Ground Zero?

No fire can burn hot enough to do this.... without help from a substance that can dramatically increase the heat of the fire. What might have this been??

That molten steel was found what...about 6 weeks after 9/11? I've asked for evidence supporting the OV on two message boards and NOBODY could provide any.

There are theories trying to explain the molten steel...the most prevalent is that fires were burning at ground zero for a very long time which produced the heat necessary for the molten steel.

Unfortunately, they do not address the fact there are three types of Flame, or fires, and only one of them is capable of creating molten steel. That one could not have been present at ground zero unless thermites were used to bring the towers down.

 

[Alarum]

Some questions for those who believe the buildings collapsed due to damage from the collision and subsequent fires alone:

A) We have established that the subsequent fires did not burn hot enough to melt the steel supports.

How then ...... Do we explain the fact that molten metal was found at Ground Zero?

No fire can burn hot enough to do this.... without help from a substance that can dramatically increase the heat of the fire. What might have this been??

Probably aluminum. Aluminum has a cheery melting point of 660 C, and the fire burned far hotter than that. The melting, metal was probably aluminum - below its ignition point, but still melting quite happily.

Also steel glows red hot at 900 C, long before its melting. Its definately not a happy bar of steel, but its quite solid.

Overall I've seen so little about this molten metal, from such sketchy sources, that I'm inclined to say it needs more backup. Most of the sources jump on some quote or other, and try to ride it into hard scientific proof.

 

[k]

Probably aluminum. Aluminum has a cheery melting point of 660 C, and the fire burned far hotter than that. The melting, metal was probably aluminum - below its ignition point, but still melting quite happily.

Also steel glows red hot at 900 C, long before its melting. Its definately not a happy bar of steel, but its quite solid.

Overall I've seen so little about this molten metal, from such sketchy sources, that I'm inclined to say it needs more backup. Most of the sources jump on some quote or other, and try to ride it into hard scientific proof.

What is the source for showing the WTC was constructed out of Aluminum or had a significant portion of Aluminum?

 

[Prophetable]

Probably aluminum. Aluminum has a cheery melting point of 660 C, and the fire burned far hotter than that. The melting, metal was probably aluminum - below its ignition point, but still melting quite happily.

Also steel glows red hot at 900 C, long before its melting. Its definately not a happy bar of steel, but its quite solid.

Overall I've seen so little about this molten metal, from such sketchy sources, that I'm inclined to say it needs more backup. Most of the sources jump on some quote or other, and try to ride it into hard scientific proof.

There's much evidence to show that Molten Steel was present at Ground Zero:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://www.911blogger.com/files/Com5May.html


The temperatures required for this can only be explained by the fact that they were induced by special means above and beoyond fires from burning jet fuel. Thermite Charges would do this.

 

[k]

About 70,000 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center was shipped to India before it was stopped by objections from environmentalists and unions, says Greenpeace India. Greenpeace says the scrap is contaminated by asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, plastics, and the lead, mercury, and other contaminants in the computers and fittings inside the twin towers destroyed on Sept. 11 last year. ... A preliminary study in India found no toxins, but Greenpeace and other environmental groups question the study's accuracy."
http://www.ban.org/ban_news/dangerous_recycling.html

Why was all this shipped out of the US?

"It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center, and it survived Hurricane Katrina."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1800575

Hmmm...seems as though some people thought it best to destroy/hide as much evidence as possible.

"Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=alate0901steelstolen

Are there NO steel plants in the US?

 

[Alarum]

About 70,000 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center was shipped to India before it was stopped by objections from environmentalists and unions, says Greenpeace India. Greenpeace says the scrap is contaminated by asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, plastics, and the lead, mercury, and other contaminants in the computers and fittings inside the twin towers destroyed on Sept. 11 last year. ... A preliminary study in India found no toxins, but Greenpeace and other environmental groups question the study's accuracy."
http://www.ban.org/ban_news/dangerous_recycling.html

Why was all this shipped out of the US?

"It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center, and it survived Hurricane Katrina."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1800575

Hmmm...seems as though some people thought it best to destroy/hide as much evidence as possible.

"Each of the twin towers contained 78,000 tons of recyclable steel. Much of this is shipped to India, China, and other Asian countries, where it will be melted down and reprocessed into new steel products."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=alate0901steelstolen

Are there NO steel plants in the US?

So Greenpeace questions the steel's safety, and says further (expensive) tests are needed to determine whether or not the steel is safe to be broken down, and you're questioning why its being sent to countries with lousy environmental regulations?

I wonder if there maybe might be an alternate explaination that doesn't involve grand conspiracies, just the theory that maybe corporations are unethical and don't like environmental testing.

 

[k]

So Greenpeace questions the steel's safety, and says further (expensive) tests are needed to determine whether or not the steel is safe to be broken down, and you're questioning why its being sent to countries with lousy environmental regulations?

I wonder if there maybe might be an alternate explaination that doesn't involve grand conspiracies, just the theory that maybe corporations are unethical and don't like environmental testing.

A serious and obvious fact is missing: It was a CRIME SCENE.

 

[Alarum]

A serious and obvious fact is missing: It was a CRIME SCENE.

So they were supposed to leave the rubble there indefinately? Do you know what they do at crime scenes? They take pictures and investigate for a bit. Then they take the body off to the morgue. They do an autopsy. Then they bury/cremate it.

They examined the collapse. They did go through the wreckage pretty thoroughly, but some things were indeed destroyed (Black boxes might be quite tough, but they were not designed to have buildings dumped on them, no matter what any conspiracy theorist thinks). They're burying it. What should they do with it?

You're acting as if they came in the middle of the night and stole the thousands of tons of wreckage. They kept 229 pieces of it, according to your own articles. That might only be 0.5% of the tower, but its still 229 steel girders. That's an awful lot of metal for them to analyze. Do you know how hard it would be, how pointless to analyze 200 times that? "Hmm, yep, after a half-million dollar analysis, and another piece of work, we've determind the 1,592 beam was probably from the 10-30th floor, and was damaged by impact with concrete. Onto the 1,593! (note: with this hypothetical number they wouldn't even be close to a quarter of the way done)"

 

[k]

So they were supposed to leave the rubble there indefinately? Do you know what they do at crime scenes? They take pictures and investigate for a bit. Then they take the body off to the morgue. They do an autopsy. Then they bury/cremate it.

They examined the collapse. They did go through the wreckage pretty thoroughly, but some things were indeed destroyed (Black boxes might be quite tough, but they were not designed to have buildings dumped on them, no matter what any conspiracy theorist thinks). They're burying it. What should they do with it?

You're acting as if they came in the middle of the night and stole the thousands of tons of wreckage. They kept 229 pieces of it, according to your own articles. That might only be 0.5% of the tower, but its still 229 steel girders. That's an awful lot of metal for them to analyze. Do you know how hard it would be, how pointless to analyze 200 times that? "Hmm, yep, after a half-million dollar analysis, and another piece of work, we've determind the 1,592 beam was probably from the 10-30th floor, and was damaged by impact with concrete. Onto the 1,593! (note: with this hypothetical number they wouldn't even be close to a quarter of the way done)"

.5% is NOTHING and the argument about shipping it to foreign nations to skirt "environmental" tests is bunked by the link I posted of a ship that is partialy built out of the WTC.

What is clear is while they cannot respectably explain how the 3 Miracles occurred people made sure the evidence was removed. I will ask again..are there no steel plants in the US that could have used that material?

 

[Alarum]

.5% is NOTHING

Actually its a couple hundred steel girders, 229 to be exact. Thats quite a few tons of nothing.

and the argument about shipping it to foreign nations to skirt "environmental" tests is bunked by the link I posted of a ship that is partialy built out of the WTC.

Because no one would ever use steel contaminated with 0.05% mercury or something to build a ship with...

What is clear is while they cannot respectably explain how the 3 Miracles occurred people made sure the evidence was removed. I will ask again..are there no steel plants in the US that could have used that material?

Until they ran a full barrage of environmental tests? Not without risk of being sued.

Why look for conspiracies when the explaination seems so much more obvious? Would the steel broken down in US plants reveal any more data? Nope, the data is destroyed when it melts, and its not like steel workers can chemically analyze steel with their hands (and what would they be looking for anyway, Thermite)?

 

[Marek]

That one could not have been present at ground zero unless thermites were used to bring the towers down.

So you believe thermite was used to bring the towers down. Does this negate the conspiracy theorist's claim that squibs from explosions are evident as the towers collapsed and that individuals heard explosions that must have been bombs going off in the buildings before the towers collapsed? Incase you didn't know, thermite does not explode, it burns.

 

[Alarum]

So you believe thermite was used to bring the towers down. Does this negate the conspiracy theorist's claim that squibs from explosions are evident as the towers collapsed and that individuals heard explosions that must have been bombs going off in the buildings before the towers collapsed? Incase you didn't know, thermite does not explode, it burns.

As far as I can tell, there is no theory, because any theory either comes off sounding ridiculous, because they're full of holes. Instead they simply yell and complain for every microsecond of everything that happened that day be explained, and then laugh at you when you provide evidence (because its not the right evidence, or enough evidence, or contradicts what some stupid website said).

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Alarum,

I'm going off to rep some people in other discussions, just so I can come back to this thread and rep you again.

 

[AmariJah]

Alarum there are several coherent theories which have far less "holes" than the official conspiracy theory YOU JUST CHOOSE TO IGNORE all the facts. And that is your perogative. However to simply accept the weak offical stroyline and pretend that there are not dozens of unanswered and blatantly ignored questions about 9/11- is nothing more than an ostrich mentality. I'm not talking about wild conspiracy theories or bizarre questions either- I am talking about questions that every patriotic American who values truth and freedom SHOULD BE ASKING!
Here is an excerpt of one intelligent point of view-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"It didn’t seem real… [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]There are thousands of these steel beams [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]that just fell like pickup sticks."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ John Albanese, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]unbelievable."[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]General Manager, Marine Terminals, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Metal Management NE[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured – separated from each other – yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95–98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95–98, photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

 

[AmariJah]

To simply ignore the dozens of serious and pressing questions which the Bush admin. has brushed off or ignored would be irresponsible and foolish. If there is even the slightest chance that our government has grown out of control and is no longer serving the people it is supposed to govern and serve- THEN IT IS OUR DUTY TO INVESTIGATE AND REIN THEM BACK IN. If there is even a minute chance that our US government was complicit in the events of 9/11 and/or helped in cover-up efforts then WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMAND FULL ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCLOSURE- if we fail to do these things at this critical juncture in our planets history, then we will be responsible for our own demise. This great Republic will fall because we simply sat by and failed to even ask the important questions about 9/11.
A famous quote comes to mind- "For evil to triumph, good men simply need to do nothing" (or something like that)
If you choose to do nothing then it is almost a given that these evil men and governments will triumph over free people.
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Here are dozens of very intelligent and pressing questions about 9/11!!! Care to answer any of these before you call all of the 9/11 truth and honesty people a bunch of conspiracy wacko's?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

What is the source for showing the WTC was constructed out of Aluminum or had a significant portion of Aluminum?

Plenty. Even from the "conspiracy" website quoted by AmariJah, in this very thread.

We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95–98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter.

The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns.​